Starting the Journey

Where to begin. I think a lot of people that I have discussed this journey with have assumed that my interest in Catholicism is because of a number of Christian artists that I admire are either Catholic or have been interested in becoming Catholic. That's partly true, but it was actually something else that got me questioning, and that was going to Spain. Being in a country almost exclusively dominated by Catholicism as far as Christianity goes got me asking: is it really possible that everyone in this entire country is wrong? Are they all completely deceived? And walking through the beautiful cathedrals, hearing the story of Gaudi and how he designed the Sagrada Familia left a deep impression on me. Here was a man who devoted a large part of his life (to his dying day) to building something for God out of a love and passion for his Creator. Could I say that he was insincere, deceived, or even unsaved, purely because he was Catholic? Well, given the prejudice of Protestantism that I've been raised with, and having grown up with in my greater church community, the simple answer to that question would be: yes. Now I don't necessarily have an issue with people who reach that conclusion if they've actually studied and researched it. But that's just the problem. Most of the people in my community, and up until that point, myself included, hadn't actually done any real research into the claims of Catholicism, or of historical Christianity for that matter.

 

I think this is probably part of the problem that Catholics have with Protestants. Most Protestants seem to think that Christianity started at the Reformation. Everything before then was a convoluted mess that could hardly be called Christianity. And most are happy with this and need no further explanation. Some of the more informed ones will say that the Church Fathers were mostly good, but everything went downhill after Constantine and  the church was then plunged into the dark ages until finally rescued by the light of the Reformation.

 

Now, to explain my mindset as a young Christian, some context is required. I was raised Charismatic, and this was around the time of the Toronto Blessing, which caused my parents to leave churches that were chasing after it. This eventually brought us back to a church that my parents had been in before I was born. It was a conservative, Pentecostal church that mostly avoided the new fads of the Charismatic movement purely because it was completely self-focused. Growing up in this fundamentalist, King James only, insular church was good in some ways, and damaging in others. Firstly, it bred a superiority that went as far as believing that this church was the only true church. Also, it discouraged theological education and frowned on any other Christian books because of the dangers of false doctrine being introduced. This was a handy tactic for the leaders, who were not necessarily doing this to intentionally keep the congregations uninformed, but it definitely did just that. This fear of the outside world filled with doctrines of demons and all kinds of spiritual dangers ensured that most of the members never risked going outside the confines of this safety. They were, however, woefully inconsistent when it came to matters of worship. Many of the contemporary artists they love are not part of their church (in fact, none of them are) and yet they will make exceptions for them. Not to mention the King James Bible that they love so dearly, which was written centuries before their church had even started. All of this may seem ridiculous to an outsider reading this, but I can assure you, while you're a part of it, it is very hard to get out of. Some of the lights that started to shine and help lift us out of this was through a discernment ministry that my mother started to run locally. It was based on the teaching of one man who was a self-appointed apologist and cults expert. I listened with great interest to his presentations on other false religions and his debates against proponents of these views. I idolized him for a few years and listened again and again to his presentations on Mormonism, Freemasonry, Calvinism, and Catholicism. It was during this time that I started to see some of issues with my own church. They never came under attack directly, mostly because they were almost entirely in-line with the teachings of this 'great' apologist. But they still didn't like him, and started to speak against his ministry. This brought our family under the spotlight of their criticism which frustrated me because they didn't even want to listen or read anything. This was the starting point of us moving out of this church. Their constant attacks from the pulpit caused great pain, and thankfully we were now able to see through their threats of us having nowhere else to turn. This was due to the fact that at this time some of our friends in the same church were exploring Calvinism. I already thought I was an expert on this subject as I has listened to a debate against Calvinism and thought I knew all the arguments that could easily refute it. Some conversations with these friends, however, showed me very quickly that my arguments were incredibly weak. After a few thoughts and concepts were planted in my head, I went and listened to the debate again, and this time decided that it was in fact the Calvinist that won the argument. Providentially, this opened the door for our family to leave the church and find a new, Calvinistic church. We were particularly taken with the teaching of John Macarthur. John Macarthur is the gateway drug for many people moving into the Reformed tradition. He still holds to the fundamentalist and dispensationalist views which most Pentecostals and more conservative Charismatics deem important, but also provides the Calvinistic teachings and love for Scripture that we now saw as important too.

 

So I entered the Reformed Tradition and it bore great fruit in my life. I finally had a greater appreciation for history, real Scriptural studies informed by theologically educated teachers. And there are many things that the Reformed Tradition has given the world. I do believe that there is no other Tradition which loves scripture more and seeks to faithfully represent its teaching with such accuracy. So the questions I have are definitely not born out of any issues I have with the Reformed tradition. I simply want to know the truth. And I've learnt that you shouldn't write something off easily without at least considering its claims. Some things are easy to dismiss, for example, Mormonism. A religion started in the 19th century that suddenly contradicts all of the claims of Orthodox Christianity based on one man's visions? Laughable, in my opinion.  But I don't think anyone can do that to Catholicism. It dominated the Christian world for 1500 years and still has more members than all of the Protestant denominations put together. I always thought that this made it easier to dismiss, because the truth is the narrow way and therefore wouldn't be followed by the majority. And to an extent this is true, but it does fall short in some areas. The early church settled on doctrinal issues by remaining united and accepting the 'catholic' teaching, which didn't mean universal, but 'according to the whole'. 2 Peter 1:20 also speaks against a purely private interpretation of Scripture. So without any easy ways to dismiss it I set out on a journey to hear its claims and sought to understand its claims before dismissing it. Fighting the prejudice in my own heart was difficult. I loved the stories of Calvin and Luther, Wycliff and Tyndale. I revered these men as saints who were real heroes of the faith.

 

I started listening to some Catholic podcasts and watching debates. Some were better than others but I found that something that is purely apologetic doesn't convince me on its own. I need to see the beauty in it. For example, the first time I believed Calvinism was because I saw the beauty of grace alone and Eternal Security. Having come from such a marred view of grace and emphasis on works and church attendance, it was a welcome relief to appreciate Christ's work on the cross with fresh understanding. I read Trent Horn's 'Case for Catholicism' and did enjoy his writing style and his arguments were good and concise. But for the most part I still found it easy to dismiss it in my mind as being far too complex to be true. Surely God just meant for us to have His Word and this would be enough? For a long time this was always my default reaction despite seeing some things that started to cause some discomfort. The first thing was Communion, or the Eucharist. In reading the Church Fathers I saw that the Eucharist was always central to the life of the church. Without getting bogged down with all the technicalities of Transubstantiation and Eucharistic adoration, I only looked at how the Early Church viewed the Eucharist. Three things are very clear:

1. It was the literal body and blood of Christ and much more than just a symbol.
2. It was central to the worship and life of the church.
3. It was viewed as a sacrifice.

 

Without getting into any further technical detail I looked at my own tradition, Reformed Baptist, and did a comparison. This is how it viewed the Eucharist or Communion:

1. It's just a symbol.
2. It's not central. It's a once a month occurrence. Preaching is central.
3. It is most definitely not a sacrifice.

 

Dealing with the early church's views then became my next hurdle. I had heard about Transubstantiation and always assumed it was a ludicrous view with no scriptural basis. But then I read John 6 again. I had never even read John 6 in the context of the Eucharist. Obviously, reading Protestant commentaries on this passage will appeal to the spiritual and symbolic nature of what Jesus was saying. But before even dealing with the early church's view on this passage, I had the following objections:

1. If it was purely symbolic language,  why then were people so offended, and why did Jesus not explain this to his disciples?
2. Why does the book of Hebrews show that Jesus was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. And what did Melchizedek offer? Bread and Wine. A coincidence? One can hardly assume that.
3. For a tradition that prides itself (especially coming from a fundamentalist background) on the literal and simple interpretation of Scripture, why interpret John 6 as spiritual? Is it not purely because we are having the same reaction as the crowd did that were listening to Jesus on that day?

In fact, most Protestants will object to John 6 even having anything to do with the Eucharist. But then this brings me to the early church. Every Church Father that I can find that talks about the Eucharist and John 6, sees the two as having a strong connection.

 

There is much more to explore with regards to the Eucharist which I will do later, but at this point I already saw some major differences between my denomination and the early church. This did not, however, make me think I needed to be Catholic. There are many Protestant denominations that do see the Eucharist as the early church did. Even amongst the Reformers, Calvin and Luther did have a more 'substantial' view of the Eucharist, it was really Zwingli that followed the purely symbolic view, and it is his that has been the more widely accepted one amongst Protestants.

 

The second area which I explored in more detail and for me is the most difficult, namely Sola Scriptura. If you're new to exploring anything outside of Protestantism, the crux of the whole debate is authority. Is it Scripture alone, or is there room for Tradition too? If you can make up your mind on this then you've pretty much settled the entire debate. This is because if you can prove that Sola Scriptura is true, then all other claims to authority by Catholicism can be written off. But, if you can prove that Sola Scriptura is not true, or at least on shaky ground, this opens the door to all of the Traditions such as Mary, the Saints, the Pope etc.

 

Sola Scriptura is the reason I'm still on this journey. After listening to debates by the most prominent Protestant apologists, I'm still struggling to see the Scriptural basis for Sola Scriptura. The verses that are given are not good enough in my opinion, and there are also far too few verses that deal with the subject at all. Here are some of the key verses that are used as a defense of Sola Scriptura:

 

2 Timothy 3:16-17 - this is the key text for Sola Scriptura. At first glance it does appear to be a fatal blow to anyone who denies Sola Scriptura. But, let's remember what Sola Scriptura actually is. Sola Scriptura is not about whether Scripture is inspired, inerrant, or useful, it is saying that in all matters, Scripture alone is the final authority. So if you read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 again, this is not what it's saying. The passage shows that Scripture is indeed:

• God-breathed - the inspired Word of God.
• Useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training
• Capable of thoroughly equipping the man of God for every good work

 

Only the last phrase above has more of a hint of the kind of Sufficiency that be used in an argument for Sola Scriptura, as it points to Scripture being capable of giving the man of God all he needs to do every good work. But, to look at the counter-argument, let's examine those phrases again from a Roman Catholic perspective:

• God-breathed - Catholicism does not deny that Scripture is inspired and inerrant.
• Useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training - Catholicism wholeheartedly agrees with this.
• Capable of thoroughly equipping the man of God for every good work - Catholicism does not deny this. This is referred to as material sufficiency.

 

Another verse that appears to make a strong case for Sola Scriptura is 1 Corinthians 4:6 -

Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other. (NIV)

 

On the surface this appears to be a knockout punch for Sola Scriptura proponents. On doing some research on this verse, however, it is interesting to note that none of the Reformers appealed to this verse as a proof for Sola Scriptura. They recognized that in its context, the verse is referring to how we determine the standards for ministers, and that is from Scripture, the Old Testament in particular. Some Bible versions have also noted that the phrase "do not go beyond what is written" was from a non-biblical maxim and could be translated as "follow the rules". Now, you could say that they are clearly providing a principle for how we should handle all matters, but this does contradict the many other passages where Paul speaks about the oral tradition that he has handed down over and above the letters he has written.

 

I'll be covering Sola Scriptura in a series of posts, but it's safe to say that this is the most important issue. But, one last point I'll make on Sola Scriptura is to note that there is almost no evidence of the teaching for the first 1500 years of church history. The Church Fathers always appealed to the Scriptures as essential for life and faith, but in the same breath would appeal to the Church's traditions and councils in the understanding of how Scripture is applied. Now, you could say that this is because most doctrine is almost always reactionary, and in a sense this is true. But, there were enough issues in the first 1000 years of church history for the church to react to and develop this doctrine, but they always appealed to Scripture and Tradition to make their case against heretics.