I enjoyed your article Joshua. Quite a journey. I too attended Southern Baptist church, then seriously explored Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, and eventually settled into an Anglican Church, which unfortunately experienced leadership scandal and was closed down. I was seeking communion with belief in real presence of Christ in the bread and wine. But I ran into problems with Roman Catholic Church that excluded non-RC from receiving bread and wine, which is hurtful because RC is really saying anyone who is not RC is not a real Christian. I agree with you regarding unscriptural problems with papal authority.
I really loved many things about EO liturgy experience, but they also are exclusive regarding communion bread and wine. So any Christian who is not EO is not a real Christian. Requiring membership of a church denomination for salvation is unscriptural. Our salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus. Also, I found the excessive focus on kissing of icons and pressure to do so to be an unnecessary show of external ritualistic behavior.
Regardless of church denomination, including RC, EO, Anglican, Reformed Southern Baptist, etc, I have found and met church pastors and priests who are all fallible, all to human, rigid, judgmental, and emotionally unhealthy as any other human being. A huge problem I see is that the False Self has never been crucified, or at least daily denied, even though the Old Self was. The lack of understanding between these two concepts still remains a reality in the collective unconscious of current state of the majority of the religious world.
I have great admiration for the many traditions within Christianity, but I eagerly await the day when we are all united perfectly in Christ forevermore. Thanks for sharing your experience!
Steve, I too struggled with the RC’s refusal to offer open communion. The issue however is not that the Church rejects your salvation, moreover, it takes 1 Cor 11:29 quite seriously. You are Christian by your baptism, receiving the Eucharist is agreeing that you are literally receiving Jesus; body, soul and divinity. Until a catechist embraces this discernment, offering His Body would be inappropriate.
Again, before I was confirmed Catholic, the priest announced that I was already “born again” and I was being confirmed into the fullness of the faith.
You might double check your opinion that orthodoxy offers the sacrament to everyone. They do offer “blessed bread” but that is not sacramental.
There is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, non-Catholics are false Christians. This is the truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Hi Mark, thanks a lot for your well thought out reply. I really respect the genuine fervor you and Jacob have, even though we may have different theological backgrounds. What still puzzles me is how Roman Catholics can call all non-Catholic, baptized Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ yet exclude them from sharing a meal together as during the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist. To some point I get it because transubstantiation vs symbolic memorial are such vastly different understandings of this sacrament. But if that’s the case and there is division or lack of unity regarding this, then is it true that all baptized believers are truly brothers and sisters of the same family? (I hope so). If it is still the same family, then wouldn’t such a family be rebuked by the Lord or at least by Apostle Paul as he rebuked the church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 11) because of division or lack of unity? If this is the case, then I really fear for the state of the visible church just as Jesus rebuked the majority of the early churches in Revelations 2-3, even if it was for different reasons. In John 17, Jesus’ high priestly prayer was that all believers be united as one. It makes me sad that the visible church does not seem to be there yet.
Hi Jacob. Thank you so much for your very thoughtful reply. I really appreciate it. You’ve given me something more to think about. Here are a couple of questions for you though. What does “full communion” with one another mean? Perhaps I may be misunderstanding this, but doesn’t a person who is not in full communion mean that that person is not considered a part of the body of that community of believers or the body of Christ, at least for that time being? And doesn’t being a Christian mean that you belong to the body of Christ?
In other words, do Roman Catholics believe that Protestants are saved or able to obtain salvation without becoming RC or being a member Roman Catholic Church?
As for the Catholic who is living in sin and has not examined their conscience and confessed, I understand why they ought not partake of the Lord’s body and blood because Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 warns us against that to avoid bringing judgment upon ourselves. But this sort of being apart from the activity of community of believers seems to me different than someone who is not Roman Catholic and therefore not allowed to participate in or excluded from receiving the Eucharist even though they have clear conscience after examination and even be willing to go to confession. Thanks again.
Hi, Steve. We Catholics believe that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ. We believe that Christ appointed the Apostles, with Peter as their head, to lead his Church. We believe that the Pope and the bishops today are the historic successors of Peter and the Apostles. We believe that Christ is with his Church always and that the Holy Spirit guides it to all truth. We believe that the Church possesses all the sacraments left to it by Christ, providing all the graces necessary for salvation. We believe that the Church possesses the "fullness" of truth. And we believe that the Eucharist is the "source and summit" of our life and worship.
So, unless someone can honestly say that he believes all that, it would not be honest for him to expect to be a "full" member of the Catholic Church. And unless he can honestly say that he believes the bread and wine no longer exist after the consecration but instead become the true body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, it would not be honest for him to receive Holy Communion.
While not in "full communion" with the visible Church, we believe that all non-Catholic, baptized Christians are still part of the Body of Christ. This union is a real and significant spiritual link - we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. And yes, we believe that non-Catholic Christians can be saved if they are following their consciences and following Christ the best they are able. But we also believe that the Catholic Church is the normal way Christ wanted to save us, and that it's through the graces that flow from his Church that we are all saved.
Wow this was intense. Thank you for sharing your story. I’m really only familiar with Protestant or secular to orthodox conversion stories. Many Protestants who become orthodox have similar stories, I know a family at my parish where both the mother and father were theologians who converted. And as well, also a Catholic deacon who converted and became an orthodox deacon at my parish.
My own journey was not theological at all. So it’s valuable to get insight into what it might be like for someone to be overwhelmed and plagued by “theological uncertainty.” This is a matter that’s very opaque to me, because as an evangelical I didn’t think about theology at all, and as an orthodox Christian I submit myself to the church in love and trust.
One thing I want to share—a prayer I love in addition to the Jesus prayer is this really simple orthodox one: “lord I believe, help my unbelief.”
It helps me a lot I think when I’m experiencing doubt, mostly because I know that even if I doubt God will overcome those doubts by His grace, as you said. To pray this is both to acknowledge that and to ask Him to help us.
And one last thing if you’re opening to answering: what were the doctrines that made you decide you couldn’t go back to the Baptist church? I don’t know what they teach so I’m curious to hear.
Someone is watching Gavin Ortland lol. We had a Protestant at our parish the other day bring up the same question.
It ultimately comes down to several things. The first, and most important, is that to deny the image is to *deny* Christs incarnation. When we venerate icons it is an expression of belief that Christ was in the flesh, that you could *see* Him.
Second, all veneration passes onto the prototype (God). The metaphysics of this gets more complicated but you can look into the use of “energies” in the Greek scriptures, look into the orthodox essence energies distinction and its biblical basis.
Third, one thing my deacon said when the Protestant visited and brought this up, is that there was never actually a historical option between thinking icons were bad and not venerating them and thinking they were good and venerating them—there was no third “they’re okay but I don’t want to be forced to.”
The reason why there’s an anathema is ultimately because we believe you deny the faith by denying Christs incarnation if you think icons are bad. It is a call to repentance, to correct heresy.
Good news is too though, no one will force you to venerate anything if you’re not comfortable. There is no military like procession forcing visitors or even the orthodox to venerate icons lol
I was a KJV only guy until I started reading books about that position. Then I found tons of holes in that belief and quietly gave it up. I still use the KJV, partly out of habit and partly because I enjoy the beauty of the language, but I no longer take issue with other translations. That whole journey started a longer journey into exploring other doctrines and learning about other denominations. As of now I've come to believe in a real presence in the Eucharist (as opposed to a memorial view) and am currently wrestling with believers baptism vs infant baptism. Should I come to believe in infant baptism, then I'll cease to be a Baptist and become—well, something else. Probably Anglican or Lutheran.
If you want to save your soul, you should become a Catholic. If you don't want to save your soul, then you can join one of the thousands and thousands of protestant sects.
Thank you for this article. It echos a lot of what I'm feeling right now. I've been under the same non-denom pastor since I was a little kid. Same church, different names for probably 23 years. I never knew anything about saints, church history, creeds, or real presence in the sacraments. Now I'm deeply struggling. Do I take my family of 5 and go to an Anglican church? Leave all the people I love? What if I'm supposed to stay and sharpen the theological rigor at my church? Yet, I'm just a layperson. I have no direct influence on orthopraxy or Sunday service. It's too great a burden to bear for me with a young family. Before the internet, I would've likely never been informed of other traditions' beliefs, and likely would've happily stayed my whole life, but now I have ecclesial anxiety. I know God is leading me to something, I just don't know what yet.
If you ever want to talk, man, send me a message. I know it can be a lot and I would love to support you regardless if you stay non-denom or change traditions.
I am Roman Catholic and fully understand what that really means. It can be used in two meanings. One, the Church that uses the Roman Rite and has the Bishop of Rome as it's patriarch; Two, the Universal Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I prefer the first meaning. I am Roman Catholic because I follow the Rite of the Church of Rome. Byzantine Catholics, Maronite Catholics, etc, are fully Catholic, but they are not Roman.
Regarding the Anglicans...do they have valid ordination or not? Pope Leo XIII said no. However, I've heard many Anglicans say that his ruling was based on erroneous information. Can you provide any insights on this?
It has to do with Anglican theology surrounding the sacrifice of the mass. In very simple terms - Leo XIII correctly discerned that the English reformers rejected the Roman understanding of eucharistic sacrifice (i.e., the propitiatory repetition of Christ's sacrifice in each mass), but he then made the unjustified leap of concluding that Anglicans held a Zwinglian view rejecting all forms of sacrificial meaning in the eucharist. His claim that Anglican orders are "null and void" is based entirely on this perceived denial of eucharistic sacrifice. However, Anglicans have never denied all sacrificial meaning of the eucharist, only the Roman belief in propitiatory repetition - in Cranmer's words "the same sacrifice of Christ is offered at every mass... not again [i.e., the Roman view], but the same." Therefore, for Anglicans Leo's pronouncement is based on an obvious failure to understand Anglican theology, and our orders are and remain valid
Were the words of ordination used by the Anglicans not changed? I was under the impression that they had been, and thus the orders are invalid (since the words are necessary for the sacrament).
As you mentioned regarding folks who become disillusioned with KJV only and then reject what they consider to be Christianity, I've found pertains to many people who leave the faith. It's an odd catch-22 in which a person no longer believes in their old tradition except that one part of their tradition that claims to be the authentic version of Christianity. While rejecting everything else, they remain completely dogmatic on this point.
Appreciated this, Josh. Sorry I couldn't get to it when you sent it.
I'd be up for reading more about the specifics of why you didn't accept the papacy. I lament that "sola scriptura" becomes "solo scriptura" among too many evangelicals. I think, though, that their practice is better than their preaching often enough: they *do* look to church authorities of various kinds, even if they say they don't. I've never met an evangelical who didn't hew toward one camp or another.
(And did you know that Sam Bray went to school with me at BJU?)
Thank Mark! I might consider writing on specifics in the future. We’ll see.
I had no idea about Sam Bray. I have always thought that Bob Jones has consistently punched higher than its weight class. I’ve met so many extremely sharp people from BJU.
Grew up Baptist and Methodist, but now Presbyterian, because that's theologically where I am most comfortable, but yet, I would be okay with Anglicanism. My dear, deceased great aunt was Catholic but not necessarily Roman Catholic, as there were flaws with Rome's doctrines that she recognized were valid criticisms. She remained within Rome to her dying day, because that is where the Holy Spirit brought her to faith, but she was just as comfortable in a Baptist or Methodist church, since my great-grandmother was Methodist, as she was in a Catholic church. Rome though flawed, as several of the Magisterial Reformers recognized, particularly Luther, recognized that true Christians can be found within her.
That said, and you've probably seen, the video of a prominent IFB pastor said it all to this day about their KJV-onlyism, "I can correct the Greek (and Hebrew) with it.". I also remember a KJV-only church, near one of my grandparents, whose marquis read for the longest time, "NIV...pure trash" at the height of that translation's popularity in the 90s.
That is where I stand as well and I am an Anglican. When my Presbyterian church was becoming more liberal I was drawn to the Roman Catholic Church (I liked Benedict XVI and the Thomistic Institute) but joined an Anglican Church and was at peace. I cannot accept an authority that puts itself above scripture. But I do respect the wider tradition and the Fathers.
Whoa! Your comment about the KJV being more central than an understanding of the Trinity broke loose a memory from high school around 2007. I was confronted by two classmates, one IFB and the other a Mormon, because I wasn't KJV only. They teamed up around KJV only even though they ought to have had more fundamental differences. It was a public high school, but I was a pastor's kid and this happened in choir class, so not the typical high school arguments.
That actually does not surprise me. I know KJV-only pastors who claim you aren’t a Christian if you use other translations. This isn’t the common view but there is serious animosity for Christians with even slightly different views among many in the KJV-only camp.
Excellent article Joshua. My wife and I resonate with your story. The question I've asked my Roman brothers is, "if 11th century, 3rd, or even 1st century established dogma was good enough for Catholicity then (and partaking of the Eucharist), why isn't it good enough now?"
Such an interesting journey! On the subject of papal infallibility, it is only in very specific circumstances.
We see evidence of this in the Bible: Peter (the "rock" upon which Christ built his Church and entrusted with the keys to the kingdom) speaks on the issue of circumcision for Christians stating that it isn't necessary for salvation and based this decision on the life and teachings of Jesus. You can read this in Acts 15. This authority to say something that becomes a truth of the faith is what's considered infallible.
We as believers are always looking to an authority to clear up matters of faith in an evolving world. Who you trust with that authority matters, and it's one reason to look to the universal Catholic Church (not just Roman, but all rites) that submits to the authority of the Pope.
How is it not carried out? (Sincerely interested in an example.) And there are no "novel dogmas". It's either dogma or it's not. People can have their own devotions and there can be points of theology over which there is debate. These are not dogmatic.
Great article. It touched upon my other question about whether you considered eo. I am still interested in what you think of eo given less dogma and more continuity with the older church.
I have specific reasons that I wish to keep personal at this time on why I couldn't consider Orthodoxy. That being said, I haven't studied it as deeply as Roman Catholicism, so I am willing to learn more. Although it has an absolutely beautiful liturgy, I have never been drawn to it in the same way as I was to Roman Catholicism.
I enjoyed your article Joshua. Quite a journey. I too attended Southern Baptist church, then seriously explored Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, and eventually settled into an Anglican Church, which unfortunately experienced leadership scandal and was closed down. I was seeking communion with belief in real presence of Christ in the bread and wine. But I ran into problems with Roman Catholic Church that excluded non-RC from receiving bread and wine, which is hurtful because RC is really saying anyone who is not RC is not a real Christian. I agree with you regarding unscriptural problems with papal authority.
I really loved many things about EO liturgy experience, but they also are exclusive regarding communion bread and wine. So any Christian who is not EO is not a real Christian. Requiring membership of a church denomination for salvation is unscriptural. Our salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus. Also, I found the excessive focus on kissing of icons and pressure to do so to be an unnecessary show of external ritualistic behavior.
Regardless of church denomination, including RC, EO, Anglican, Reformed Southern Baptist, etc, I have found and met church pastors and priests who are all fallible, all to human, rigid, judgmental, and emotionally unhealthy as any other human being. A huge problem I see is that the False Self has never been crucified, or at least daily denied, even though the Old Self was. The lack of understanding between these two concepts still remains a reality in the collective unconscious of current state of the majority of the religious world.
I have great admiration for the many traditions within Christianity, but I eagerly await the day when we are all united perfectly in Christ forevermore. Thanks for sharing your experience!
We will never been united in Christ until all non-Catholics sects renounce their heretical doctrines and submit to Christ's Church.
Steve, I too struggled with the RC’s refusal to offer open communion. The issue however is not that the Church rejects your salvation, moreover, it takes 1 Cor 11:29 quite seriously. You are Christian by your baptism, receiving the Eucharist is agreeing that you are literally receiving Jesus; body, soul and divinity. Until a catechist embraces this discernment, offering His Body would be inappropriate.
Again, before I was confirmed Catholic, the priest announced that I was already “born again” and I was being confirmed into the fullness of the faith.
You might double check your opinion that orthodoxy offers the sacrament to everyone. They do offer “blessed bread” but that is not sacramental.
Blessings on your journey!
There is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, non-Catholics are false Christians. This is the truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
This is NOT the teaching of the Church.
Hi Mark, thanks a lot for your well thought out reply. I really respect the genuine fervor you and Jacob have, even though we may have different theological backgrounds. What still puzzles me is how Roman Catholics can call all non-Catholic, baptized Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ yet exclude them from sharing a meal together as during the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist. To some point I get it because transubstantiation vs symbolic memorial are such vastly different understandings of this sacrament. But if that’s the case and there is division or lack of unity regarding this, then is it true that all baptized believers are truly brothers and sisters of the same family? (I hope so). If it is still the same family, then wouldn’t such a family be rebuked by the Lord or at least by Apostle Paul as he rebuked the church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 11) because of division or lack of unity? If this is the case, then I really fear for the state of the visible church just as Jesus rebuked the majority of the early churches in Revelations 2-3, even if it was for different reasons. In John 17, Jesus’ high priestly prayer was that all believers be united as one. It makes me sad that the visible church does not seem to be there yet.
Hi Jacob. Thank you so much for your very thoughtful reply. I really appreciate it. You’ve given me something more to think about. Here are a couple of questions for you though. What does “full communion” with one another mean? Perhaps I may be misunderstanding this, but doesn’t a person who is not in full communion mean that that person is not considered a part of the body of that community of believers or the body of Christ, at least for that time being? And doesn’t being a Christian mean that you belong to the body of Christ?
In other words, do Roman Catholics believe that Protestants are saved or able to obtain salvation without becoming RC or being a member Roman Catholic Church?
As for the Catholic who is living in sin and has not examined their conscience and confessed, I understand why they ought not partake of the Lord’s body and blood because Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 warns us against that to avoid bringing judgment upon ourselves. But this sort of being apart from the activity of community of believers seems to me different than someone who is not Roman Catholic and therefore not allowed to participate in or excluded from receiving the Eucharist even though they have clear conscience after examination and even be willing to go to confession. Thanks again.
Hi, Steve. We Catholics believe that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ. We believe that Christ appointed the Apostles, with Peter as their head, to lead his Church. We believe that the Pope and the bishops today are the historic successors of Peter and the Apostles. We believe that Christ is with his Church always and that the Holy Spirit guides it to all truth. We believe that the Church possesses all the sacraments left to it by Christ, providing all the graces necessary for salvation. We believe that the Church possesses the "fullness" of truth. And we believe that the Eucharist is the "source and summit" of our life and worship.
So, unless someone can honestly say that he believes all that, it would not be honest for him to expect to be a "full" member of the Catholic Church. And unless he can honestly say that he believes the bread and wine no longer exist after the consecration but instead become the true body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, it would not be honest for him to receive Holy Communion.
While not in "full communion" with the visible Church, we believe that all non-Catholic, baptized Christians are still part of the Body of Christ. This union is a real and significant spiritual link - we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. And yes, we believe that non-Catholic Christians can be saved if they are following their consciences and following Christ the best they are able. But we also believe that the Catholic Church is the normal way Christ wanted to save us, and that it's through the graces that flow from his Church that we are all saved.
Wow this was intense. Thank you for sharing your story. I’m really only familiar with Protestant or secular to orthodox conversion stories. Many Protestants who become orthodox have similar stories, I know a family at my parish where both the mother and father were theologians who converted. And as well, also a Catholic deacon who converted and became an orthodox deacon at my parish.
My own journey was not theological at all. So it’s valuable to get insight into what it might be like for someone to be overwhelmed and plagued by “theological uncertainty.” This is a matter that’s very opaque to me, because as an evangelical I didn’t think about theology at all, and as an orthodox Christian I submit myself to the church in love and trust.
One thing I want to share—a prayer I love in addition to the Jesus prayer is this really simple orthodox one: “lord I believe, help my unbelief.”
It helps me a lot I think when I’m experiencing doubt, mostly because I know that even if I doubt God will overcome those doubts by His grace, as you said. To pray this is both to acknowledge that and to ask Him to help us.
And one last thing if you’re opening to answering: what were the doctrines that made you decide you couldn’t go back to the Baptist church? I don’t know what they teach so I’m curious to hear.
Can you provide any explicit biblical support for the mandatory veneration of icons? That’s one of my concerns with EO as a Reformed Protestant.
Someone is watching Gavin Ortland lol. We had a Protestant at our parish the other day bring up the same question.
It ultimately comes down to several things. The first, and most important, is that to deny the image is to *deny* Christs incarnation. When we venerate icons it is an expression of belief that Christ was in the flesh, that you could *see* Him.
Second, all veneration passes onto the prototype (God). The metaphysics of this gets more complicated but you can look into the use of “energies” in the Greek scriptures, look into the orthodox essence energies distinction and its biblical basis.
Third, one thing my deacon said when the Protestant visited and brought this up, is that there was never actually a historical option between thinking icons were bad and not venerating them and thinking they were good and venerating them—there was no third “they’re okay but I don’t want to be forced to.”
The reason why there’s an anathema is ultimately because we believe you deny the faith by denying Christs incarnation if you think icons are bad. It is a call to repentance, to correct heresy.
Good news is too though, no one will force you to venerate anything if you’re not comfortable. There is no military like procession forcing visitors or even the orthodox to venerate icons lol
I was a KJV only guy until I started reading books about that position. Then I found tons of holes in that belief and quietly gave it up. I still use the KJV, partly out of habit and partly because I enjoy the beauty of the language, but I no longer take issue with other translations. That whole journey started a longer journey into exploring other doctrines and learning about other denominations. As of now I've come to believe in a real presence in the Eucharist (as opposed to a memorial view) and am currently wrestling with believers baptism vs infant baptism. Should I come to believe in infant baptism, then I'll cease to be a Baptist and become—well, something else. Probably Anglican or Lutheran.
I'd appreciate any and all prayers.
If you want to save your soul, you should become a Catholic. If you don't want to save your soul, then you can join one of the thousands and thousands of protestant sects.
We should publicly tar and feather every person that says this.
I am not worthy.
Thank you for this article. It echos a lot of what I'm feeling right now. I've been under the same non-denom pastor since I was a little kid. Same church, different names for probably 23 years. I never knew anything about saints, church history, creeds, or real presence in the sacraments. Now I'm deeply struggling. Do I take my family of 5 and go to an Anglican church? Leave all the people I love? What if I'm supposed to stay and sharpen the theological rigor at my church? Yet, I'm just a layperson. I have no direct influence on orthopraxy or Sunday service. It's too great a burden to bear for me with a young family. Before the internet, I would've likely never been informed of other traditions' beliefs, and likely would've happily stayed my whole life, but now I have ecclesial anxiety. I know God is leading me to something, I just don't know what yet.
If you ever want to talk, man, send me a message. I know it can be a lot and I would love to support you regardless if you stay non-denom or change traditions.
Hi Joshua. What a great post!
I am Roman Catholic and fully understand what that really means. It can be used in two meanings. One, the Church that uses the Roman Rite and has the Bishop of Rome as it's patriarch; Two, the Universal Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I prefer the first meaning. I am Roman Catholic because I follow the Rite of the Church of Rome. Byzantine Catholics, Maronite Catholics, etc, are fully Catholic, but they are not Roman.
Regarding the Anglicans...do they have valid ordination or not? Pope Leo XIII said no. However, I've heard many Anglicans say that his ruling was based on erroneous information. Can you provide any insights on this?
It has to do with Anglican theology surrounding the sacrifice of the mass. In very simple terms - Leo XIII correctly discerned that the English reformers rejected the Roman understanding of eucharistic sacrifice (i.e., the propitiatory repetition of Christ's sacrifice in each mass), but he then made the unjustified leap of concluding that Anglicans held a Zwinglian view rejecting all forms of sacrificial meaning in the eucharist. His claim that Anglican orders are "null and void" is based entirely on this perceived denial of eucharistic sacrifice. However, Anglicans have never denied all sacrificial meaning of the eucharist, only the Roman belief in propitiatory repetition - in Cranmer's words "the same sacrifice of Christ is offered at every mass... not again [i.e., the Roman view], but the same." Therefore, for Anglicans Leo's pronouncement is based on an obvious failure to understand Anglican theology, and our orders are and remain valid
Thank you!
Were the words of ordination used by the Anglicans not changed? I was under the impression that they had been, and thus the orders are invalid (since the words are necessary for the sacrament).
As you mentioned regarding folks who become disillusioned with KJV only and then reject what they consider to be Christianity, I've found pertains to many people who leave the faith. It's an odd catch-22 in which a person no longer believes in their old tradition except that one part of their tradition that claims to be the authentic version of Christianity. While rejecting everything else, they remain completely dogmatic on this point.
Appreciated this, Josh. Sorry I couldn't get to it when you sent it.
I'd be up for reading more about the specifics of why you didn't accept the papacy. I lament that "sola scriptura" becomes "solo scriptura" among too many evangelicals. I think, though, that their practice is better than their preaching often enough: they *do* look to church authorities of various kinds, even if they say they don't. I've never met an evangelical who didn't hew toward one camp or another.
(And did you know that Sam Bray went to school with me at BJU?)
Thank Mark! I might consider writing on specifics in the future. We’ll see.
I had no idea about Sam Bray. I have always thought that Bob Jones has consistently punched higher than its weight class. I’ve met so many extremely sharp people from BJU.
I give you six years…ten if you’re stubborn.
Grew up Baptist and Methodist, but now Presbyterian, because that's theologically where I am most comfortable, but yet, I would be okay with Anglicanism. My dear, deceased great aunt was Catholic but not necessarily Roman Catholic, as there were flaws with Rome's doctrines that she recognized were valid criticisms. She remained within Rome to her dying day, because that is where the Holy Spirit brought her to faith, but she was just as comfortable in a Baptist or Methodist church, since my great-grandmother was Methodist, as she was in a Catholic church. Rome though flawed, as several of the Magisterial Reformers recognized, particularly Luther, recognized that true Christians can be found within her.
That said, and you've probably seen, the video of a prominent IFB pastor said it all to this day about their KJV-onlyism, "I can correct the Greek (and Hebrew) with it.". I also remember a KJV-only church, near one of my grandparents, whose marquis read for the longest time, "NIV...pure trash" at the height of that translation's popularity in the 90s.
That is where I stand as well and I am an Anglican. When my Presbyterian church was becoming more liberal I was drawn to the Roman Catholic Church (I liked Benedict XVI and the Thomistic Institute) but joined an Anglican Church and was at peace. I cannot accept an authority that puts itself above scripture. But I do respect the wider tradition and the Fathers.
This is beautifully written & explained, it gave me peace reading it! Thank you!
Whoa! Your comment about the KJV being more central than an understanding of the Trinity broke loose a memory from high school around 2007. I was confronted by two classmates, one IFB and the other a Mormon, because I wasn't KJV only. They teamed up around KJV only even though they ought to have had more fundamental differences. It was a public high school, but I was a pastor's kid and this happened in choir class, so not the typical high school arguments.
That actually does not surprise me. I know KJV-only pastors who claim you aren’t a Christian if you use other translations. This isn’t the common view but there is serious animosity for Christians with even slightly different views among many in the KJV-only camp.
Excellent article Joshua. My wife and I resonate with your story. The question I've asked my Roman brothers is, "if 11th century, 3rd, or even 1st century established dogma was good enough for Catholicity then (and partaking of the Eucharist), why isn't it good enough now?"
"Everywhere, always, and by all." I don't see how to align Vincent of Lerins with Newman's doctrine of development.
It's because you don't have the theological virtue of Faith.
If you are not Catholic, then us Romans are not your brothers. Scripture is clear on not making a heretic your "brother in Christ."
Such an interesting journey! On the subject of papal infallibility, it is only in very specific circumstances.
We see evidence of this in the Bible: Peter (the "rock" upon which Christ built his Church and entrusted with the keys to the kingdom) speaks on the issue of circumcision for Christians stating that it isn't necessary for salvation and based this decision on the life and teachings of Jesus. You can read this in Acts 15. This authority to say something that becomes a truth of the faith is what's considered infallible.
We as believers are always looking to an authority to clear up matters of faith in an evolving world. Who you trust with that authority matters, and it's one reason to look to the universal Catholic Church (not just Roman, but all rites) that submits to the authority of the Pope.
This is always the reply but it is not carried out in practice. And there are too many examples of novel dogmas being declared.
How is it not carried out? (Sincerely interested in an example.) And there are no "novel dogmas". It's either dogma or it's not. People can have their own devotions and there can be points of theology over which there is debate. These are not dogmatic.
Great article. It touched upon my other question about whether you considered eo. I am still interested in what you think of eo given less dogma and more continuity with the older church.
I have specific reasons that I wish to keep personal at this time on why I couldn't consider Orthodoxy. That being said, I haven't studied it as deeply as Roman Catholicism, so I am willing to learn more. Although it has an absolutely beautiful liturgy, I have never been drawn to it in the same way as I was to Roman Catholicism.
See my comment to the article for my personal opinion/experience.
https://ianmcniff.substack.com/p/three-kinds-of-not-now?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2lo6de