The Holy Trinity: Wellspring of Denominations?

A Protestant friend of mine, in a recent e-mail, said the following to me.

 

One truth that I think is essential in understanding the church is its reflection of the Trinity, the one and the many. Their is one universal church yet there are many parts of the church, in this case many denominations. Yet all these denominations affirm in one accord that Jesus Christ is Lord and that he came to die for our sins and arose again on the third day and will come again to judge the living and the dead. Is it not the same with the Godhead? There is one God, yet three individual persons. All are equal yet different. Their is one body, yet many different parts with different purposes to expand Christ’s kingdom. God has made us all in his image, yet with a variety of different gifts and talents. Is it not so with the church?

This friend and I are talking about my conversion to the Catholic Church. He did not attend my Confirmation because of his opposition to my conversion. I knew he had problems with the Catholic Faith, but I did not realize how deeply rooted they were until he refused to come to my Confirmation. We have been engaging the issues which separate us since he revealed his reservations. This comment was extracted from one of these e-mails.

I replied to his e-mail comment and here were my thoughts.

Jesus never has division in his Church as his purpose. He made that clear in John 17 when he prayed for unity. God is not the author of confusion, but he is the author of order and unity. Again, common ground between denominations, and their common ground with the Catholic Church, does not constitute mere Christianity, or the basics of the faith. This is democratic. What if each of these Protestant faith traditions change in perspective over the years, as they have in the past, and the common ground shifts some? This would shift the areas of common ground, and thus, change what would be recognized as mere or basic Christianity. The Bible presents a “faith once delivered.” It is never changing, though we may come to a deeper understanding of the faith, or have to make clearer statements on something which has always been held or believed to be true.

To use the Trinity to justify the existence of denominations is unfair and dangerous. The Trinity is not divided. He is unified, and His unity is not a common ground unity. It is full and total communion. It is nothing like denominations and the common ground which may exist between them. To compare the unity of the Trinity to the supposed unity of denominations is to destroy the concept of the unity of the Trinity. There are disagreements and out right contradictions which exist between denominations. There is none of that in the God-head. I think you need to seriously reconsider that line of reasoning concerning the Trinity. It is dangerous.  

The true Church, which is Catholic, is led by the successor of Peter, who is the Pope. In his fellowship are the bishops and dioceses which hold to the truth of the Catholic faith. The unity which exists between these churches/dioceses, their bishops and the bishop of Rome, is far more similar to the unity of the Trinity, because their faith is one just as out Triune God is One.   

I feel you often fall back on this idea of denominations are ok because of the Trinity. You, have to agree that denominations were never God’s intended purpose. He wanted his people to be one body. Granted, God can bring good out of evil, but the good will be the greater unity which is achieved when all of God’s people return to the unity of the See of Peter, in the Catholic Church. This is why I challenge you to further read about, and discuss these issues with me, so we can see that unity come into being – that is unity between Protestants and Catholics in the Catholic Church.

My friend defends denominations based on the concept of the “one and the many,” which he, no doubt, affirms from the writings of Rousas John Rushdoony. I believe in a principal of the one and the many. There is certainly diversity which is to be allowed, and I feel it is directly related to the diversity which is based in the life of the Trinity. Diversity, in ecclesiological terms, should not be used in defense of division, but rather in defense of such areas in the life of the Church where variety and freedom of expression is permitted.

The conversation that this friend and I are having, so far, seems to be productive. I hope he would agree. I just pray that it continues to be so, and that perhaps, he too will come to the Catholic Faith.

It Is Finsihed – It Has Only Begun

“It is Finished.”

 

Those words have particularly acute meaning for me just coming out of Holy Week. The message of Jesus, as he hung on the cross and breathed his last breath, was that his work of reconciling men with God was complete. He came, he served, he died, and he breathed his last. Mysteriously, his work was yet incomplete. His descent to the dead and especially his Resurrection were essential aspects of his work of reconciliation and redemption. If Christ is not risen we have no hope. We have a dead savior. We worship in vain. Yet, we believe, and do so without hesitation, that he rose from the grave, triumphant, on the third day. He instructed his apostles and ascended to heaven. He intercedes for us there, and he has sent the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, to dwell with us. Christ is also ever present with us in the Eucharist, where he feeds us his body, blood, soul and divinity. In the Eucharist we receive the risen Christ.

 

Holy week was an “It is finished” moment for me, but simultaneously it is only the beginning of a new phase of life, even a resurrected phase of life. Let me recap my week.

 

Passion/Palm Sunday – I worshiped at the Mass which celebrated the Lord’s entry into Jerusalem, and which called us to remember those things which the Lord was about to endure there for us. I also had to work that afternoon.

 

Monday – Worked only a few hours and then began my vacation.

 

Tuesday – Attended the Chrism Mass at the Cathedral of St. John Berchman. I was struck by the pageantry of this Mass. It was wonderful to be in the beautiful Cathedral, and see my bishop celebrating Mass, with all of his priests, deacons, the religious, and many of the faithful of the Diocese gathered together around the table. It brought to mind the letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch when he would say “Where the bishop is, there is the Church.” I leaned over to my friend and told him that this is the closest we could ever be to the early Church, because in this room the bishop and all of the people were gathered for the Mass. It was wonderful seeing the oils concentrated by the bishop – two which would be used on me later in the week.

 

Wednesday – I went to the 7:00 A. M. Mass at my parish in Monroe. Following the Mass I had my first Reconciliation. I had gone to confession in the Episcopal Church, so confessing sin, even secret sin, wasn’t new to me. I went in and knelt down behind the screen without any trepidation or anxiety. Yet as I began I still breathed heavily and slightly slurred my words, as if I were getting emotional. This was totally unexpected for me. Otherwise, the guidance I received was great, and the penance was very pastoral. It consisted of reading the Parable of the Prodigal Son and imaging myself as the son and God as the father in that account. I also asked Fr. Joe about Anointing of the Sick, following Reconciliation. I have a wound in my leg that physicians have not been able to heal. He told me to come to him the next day. I left the confessional and sat in the sanctuary and prayed the Divine Mercy Chaplet in the presence of the Sacrament, which was exposed on the Altar for adoration. I prayed the Chaplet in thanksgiving for my first Reconciliation. A very nice feeling of peace and warmth arose within me, as I sat with my eyes closed and meditated during that Chaplet. After I left I got breakfast and continued my day.

 

Maundy Thursday – I participated in my second Sacrament. I was anointed with the oil for the sick and was prayed over in that Rite. The Holy Thursday Mass was very beautiful and I was one of the people chosen to have my feet washed by the Priest during the Liturgy. It was a humbling experience. Following the Mass I participated in a Seder service as the narrator. The original narrator had to go out of town suddenly and I was asked to fill in. I had not planned on attending the Seder service, as I have some questions about the purpose of it, but I agreed to help. It was nice, and it helped me to see how much emphasis was placed on the New Covenant at the Seder.

 

Good Friday – At noon I gathered with several other people at the Church to begin the Divine Mercy Novena. I pray this prayer regularly so I wanted to experience it with a group. At 3:00 we had a Good Friday Liturgy which included the veneration of the Cross. Following that I went to my friend Fr. Bill Estes house – Anglican Priest – and visited with he and his family for a time. I then went home and prepared for out of town guests for my Confirmation.

 

Holy Saturday – I went to town in the morning and took care of some final preparations for the rest of the weekend. I met a friend of mine in Ruston at about 5:00. He drove in from San Antonio for my Confirmation. We then went down to St. Matthew at 7:00 for the Vigil, which began at 8:00. My mom, step-dad, and several friends attended the Vigil. It was a beautiful Mass. The music was excellent, thanks to the hard work of Ed Patton and the Choir. Finally, the moment I had been waiting for since last fall arrived, and following the baptisms, I was received into the Catholic Church and Confirmed with the Sacred Oil of Chrism. Shortly after that, I received my first Holy Communion! The Mass was even celebrated facing East. After the Mass six of us got dinner and talked and celebrated until 4:00 a.m. We went to my step-sisters house and slept on couches and recliners until 8:00 or 9:00 when we got up and talked some more.

 

Easter Sunday – The out of town guests – all three from Texas – had to leave early, so we saw them off. Before 10:00. I went home, slept an hour and a half, and then got up to go to the Cathedral. There was a Solemn High Mass, Extraordinary Form, celebrated there, with an orchestra which preformed the music. My friend Josh and I got there early enough to get a front row seat. This was my second EF Mass to attend at the Cathedral. If you have not been, you don’t know what you are missing. At least go to one to better appreciate the Ordinary Mass, and also to worship God the way he had been worshiped by many generations of faithful Catholics in the past. I received my second Eucharist there.

 

It many ways I can now say “It is finished.” I am now a Confirmed Catholic. I’ve participated in the Sacraments of Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, Confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist. Yet, I know, this is actually only the beginning, and not ultimately an ending. A new chapter has begun – my life as a Catholic.

Why Are Catholic Bibles So Ugly?

 

 

Is it just me or when you are shopping for a nice Catholic Bible does the task seem to be impossible? I want a good looking Bible. Superficial? Perhaps. I want a nice looking Bible though. As a Protestant I could walk into a Christian Book Store and pick my choice of color, binding, page guild, thumb tags, print sizes, you name it. I used to sale Bibles in one of these stores and I recall many times people coming in and feeling overwhelmed by the choices they had. I could see the look of the deer in the headlights appear on many customers faces when they wanted to get that perfect Bible for themselves, their friend, or whomever they were making the purchase for. I began to tell these overwhelmed souls that I felt like this purchase was like buying a car. You pick your translation, your color, your binding, font size, and all of these things and then you can take it home. In a car it is a similar experience. Some people came in and said “I just want the Holy Bible” which meant they wanted the King James. Others wanted one easy to read, etc. I was happy to help them. Please understand I hate the materialistic way we commonly approach shopping for Bibles. They have a Bible for everyone and every thing. We have them for all occasions. Bible publishing is a consumer driven, dog-eat-dog business like every other one in America and it is not beneficial.

 

As a Catholic I feel underwhelmed with my choice of Bibles. I don’t want a thousand translations but I would like one that looks nice, has a few colors to choose from, and is bound with nice material. It just seems like there is not much thought put into the appearance of the Catholic Bibles. They look like they’ve been sitting on the shelves since the 1970’s. They are in strange colors, or the pages within are so transparent that they are difficult to read because the text on the other pages shows through. This is the case with the New Saint Joseph Missal too. The leather is cheap, the pages allow for the text on the next page to show through, especially the red inked text, the font is terrible, and the illustrations look like children’s Sunday School coloring book pages. By contrast if you were to pick up an Episcopal Book of Common Prayer you would see a quality book, especially those published by Oxford University Press.

 

I have seen some Catholic Bibles which are nice, but it was not until this weekend when I was finally able to get one I liked a lot. It is made by Ignatius Press and it is the Revised Standard Version. The image is below. It is beautiful, the cover looks like what you would see on a nice Gospel book, and it was really affordable. I wish I could find a good Missal made like this. The 1962 Roman Missal I own is very impressive. I don’t know what Catholic Bible publishers and Missal publishers are thinking but please make the Bible and Missal more attractive. Pick up the phone and call Oxford University Press, or apparently Ignatius Press or Baronius Press and ask them for pointers.

 

I am not a Sola Scriptura kind of person, at least anymore. I think this has had an effect on the Protestant Bible market, but the Bible is a huge part of our Catholic faith and tradition and I feel we should honor it, and our Missal with a dignified and solemn appearance which is worthy of the subject matter.

 

 

 

 

 

I LOVE This Prayer!

I remember years ago watching EWTN as a Presbyterian and hearing this prayer and falling in love with it. It is a taste of heaven on Earth.

I Was A Calvinist – Now I Am Catholic

When I was introduced to Calvinism, as a Baptist, I was very ignorant of the journey of faith this system of belief would send me on. Until this point in my life I felt I had a plain understanding of salvation, God’s plan for man, what it means to evangelize, etc. Calvinism rocked my world in a tremendous fashion. One Calvinistic leaning Christian band, which I still like and enjoy music from today, named Caedmon’s Call, has lyrics which explain what Calvinism did for me at this point in my life. 

 

 And you’re an army in a horse
And you have taken me by force
And all the freedom in this world could not resist
The sweet temptation of your sweet elusiveness 

In other words, I felt taken by surprise, as if overran by an army. I felt as if the doors had been kicked in on my perfect little Christian worldview and I was dragged out into the street totally in shock with what just happened. I was initially opposed to the system, but I soon bought into it because it seemed to explain areas of the Bible which had previously been troubling to me. I could not explain, for example, how John 3:16 which expresses God’s love for the world fit along side passages such as Romans 9 where it seemed that God hated one person and loved another, and arbitrarily at that. When the Baptist Church failed to offer any coherent argument against the Calvinistic system, and Calvinism seemed to at least offer what appeared to be a rational, educated, and systematic understanding of the tension I detected in the Bible, I latched on. The Baptist Church, in my experience, when approached with those two verses, would essentially say that we have to understand Romans 9 in view of John 3:16. “God loves everyone, we can’t explain what Romans 9 actually means, but we know what it doesn’t mean, and that is that God would hate someone, or worse, destine them to hell.” It was as if they arbitrarily chose which verse they liked better, forced the rest of the Bible through the filter of that verse, and brushed aside any questions which would arise concerning “difficult sayings” in the Bible. The Calvinistic answer, on the other hand, seemed to allow for an explanation of Romans 9, and a new reading of John 3:16 in light of the teachings of Romans 9. In the Calvinistic system, the “world” in John 3:16, for example, could mean that God loves mankind “in general” or God loves “the creation” but that doesn’t mean he could not damn a multitude of individual souls as “vessels of wrath” for his glory, because he is God, and he is well within his rights to do what he wills with what he created. Now, in hindsight, it seems that Calvinism also latches on to one verse, or types of verses, and forces the rest of the Bible into that framework. The problem is that the Calvinistic system did it so much more convincingly than did the Baptists. So I saluted the flag of Calvinism and became a Calvinist. Don’t get the impression that I feel like I was tricked. I was not. I chose to be a Calvinist. I was a convicted Calvinist. I believed it, taught it, argued for it, and went on the offensive for it. I was not a victim, or half-hearted Calvinist. You may hear people say they are a “Three point Calvinist,” meaning they only believe three of the five popular points of Calvinism which have been distilled in the acronym “T.U.L.I.P.” I can’t explain those people and where they are on their journey. I was a full blooded five point Calvinist and don’t you forget it! Sorry, my Calvinism is trying to resurface. Where is my cilice when I need it?  

 

The Federal Vision came along at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church and this forced me to go to the Bible and reevaluate my understanding of the Church, the Sacraments, liturgy, and even my view of Calvinism in light of the covenant. I began to become much more “catholic” at this point. I felt that something valuable was being recovered in our tradition. I was perfectly content to remain a liturgical, sacramental, high-church Presbyterian until I read St. Ignatius of Antioch. I could not shake the conviction that St. Ignatius had concerning the necessity of bishops in the Church. This point, along with what I had come to learn about the Sacraments, liturgy, and the nature of the Church, thanks to Jeffrey Steel and Auburn Avenue/the Federal Vision, showed me that the truly consistent thing for me to do would be to leave the PCA and become Anglican. I wish I had gone a step further right then and went to Rome, but I was not prepared for that yet. The time would come later. The Federal Vision is criticized by its Reformed opponents who say it is the “Road to Rome.” The supporters of the Federal Vision say it is not. For me, it is hard for me to see how I would be Catholic now (or almost) had it not been for the influence of the Federal Vision and for that I am eternally grateful.

 

When I made the decision to leave the Presbyterian Church in America for the Episcopal Church, I had determined to be “Catholic” in liturgy and ecclesiology while remaining Calvinistic in soteriology. I was a “Reformed” Episcopal in my mind (and almost was REC), in the beginning. As I continued to study Church history I began to become less comfortable with Calvinism the more “Catholic” I became. It became plainly obvious to me that the people I admired most would not have called themselves Calvinists, and very often outright attacked Calvinism and soundly defeated Calvinistic interpretations of scripture and theology in light of the covenant, the Sacraments, the nature of the Church, and history. My Calvinism was dying, and hiding, but it was not yet dead.  

 

One day I was home searching the internet for who knows what, when I came across the final nail in the Calvinistic coffin. What I found was what we know as the Canons of the Council of Orange, which were issued in 529 AD. I recommend you read all of the canons, but it was this statement mainly which caused me to finally give up Calvinism. Emphasis mine. 

 

CONCLUSION. And thus according to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God’s sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. We therefore believe that the glorious faith which was given to Abel the righteous, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and to all the saints of old, and which the Apostle Paul commends in extolling them (Heb. 11), was not given through natural goodness as it was before to Adam, but was bestowed by the grace of God. And we know and also believe that even after the coming of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ, as has already been frequently stated and as the Apostle Paul declares, “For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake” (Phil. 1:29). And again, “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and it is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). And as the Apostle says of himself, “I have obtained mercy to be faithful” (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). He did not say, “because I was faithful,” but “to be faithful.” And again, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7). And again, “Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights” (Jas. 1:17). And again, “No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven” (John 3:27). There are innumerable passages of holy scripture which can be quoted to prove the case for grace, but they have been omitted for the sake of brevity, because further examples will not really be of use where few are deemed sufficient. 

 

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God’s kindness. 

 

Now this was powerful to me. The entire listing of the canons is awesome to read, but look back at this conclusion I have posted. This document is the Catholic teaching on this matter. It speaks of free will as being weekend or impaired. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

 

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297 

The Catholic teaching, in brief, then is: 

 

418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”). 

 

If this Council expresses the findings of the early Church juxtaposed to Pelagius, and it does, then we can also see how the position of the early Church stands juxtaposed against Calvinism. Most Calvinists would not allow for the teaching that Original Sin is washed away by baptism. Further, most Calvinists would not agree that free will is only “impaired or weakened” by Original Sin. Finally, if any Calvinists were left standing after that, the anathema of those who believe that “any are foreordained to evil by the power of God” would cause them to fall as well. Though I had been taught that Calvinism or the Reformed tradition was the faithful heir of the Patristic Church I found that early Church history, time and again, does not support this claim.

 

The Canons of the Council of Orange

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/councilorange.html

Jesus: Religion or Relationship?

You may hear people say that Jesus is all about relationships and not religion. Even if you have never heard someone say this, it has had an impact on many people who call themselves Christians, or consider themselves “saved.” Here is what people who say this believe.

 

“Religion can be very different than having a Relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Religions are man made, and are based on trying to get to God through rules and regulations and works. Man made religions all are based on people’s efforts at reaching God and being made right with Him through their own efforts. God’s plan for man’s salvation and for being right with Him is told throughout the Bible, in the Old Testament and the New Testament. God’s plan is not based on people’s efforts and good works, but is based on His amazing Love and amazing Grace for us; His plan involved His precious Son Jesus paying the price and cost for our sins on the cross. You need to put ALL of your trust and faith in Jesus and in what He did for us on the cross, and not in any religion or in your own efforts. Simply put all of your trust and faith in Jesus, and accept His gift of salvation and eternal life, and experience the joy of having a right RELATIONSHIP of love with God.”  

- Source: http://www.intimacywithgod.com/religion.html

 

 

The idea here is that “religion” is a stumbling block to having a “relationship” with Jesus. These people would probably argue that organized religion is unnecessary. They would say that all I need is “me and Jesus.” Or, they may say something similar too, “I can worship Jesus anywhere, in a boat fishing, or a deer stand, or driving, I don’t need to go to any particular Church.”

 

Now, elements of this are true, and that is what makes it so dangerous to people’s souls. It is true that, in some cases, people can get so caught up in the programs, activities, ministries, and routine of going to Church that they may loose sight of their relationship with Jesus. However, I say, and Jesus says, you cannot have a real relationship with him without the Church. Consider the following words of Jesus from the Gospel of St. Matthew, chapter 16, verses 18 and 19.

 

¹⁸And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ¹⁹And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

In Jesus’ own words he said “I will build my church.” That means that Jesus came to build a Church. This means that the idea that a relationship with Jesus can be had independent of the Church was not what Jesus had in mind. Jesus told his apostle Peter that he would be the leader of the Church. He promised that he would be the rock upon which the Church would be built, and he gave the keys of the kingdom of the Church to Peter. The keys are symbols of authority. Jesus also promised that the Church would never fall to the assaults of the devil. The Church, to Jesus, is important.

The question then is what is the Church? The Church is not the building, or the “denomination” but it is the people who are in a relationship with Jesus. These people, as all sorts of groups of people do, are organized into local congregations or chapters, called churches, which have rules, buildings, leaders, etc for the sake of unity and supporting one another. These congregations and their leaders must also be under the authority of Peter through his successors. St. Paul the Apostle, in the following passage of the Bible (Ephesians 5) compares the relationship that Jesus has with his Church (the people as a whole) to the relationship a man has with his wife.

²⁵Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; ²⁶That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, ²⁷That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. ²⁸So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. ²⁹For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: ³⁰For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. ³¹For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. ³²This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. ³³Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

When we think of Jesus’ love for us we should immediately think of the Cross. We can remember the familiar passage from John 3:16 that says “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son…” How was the Son of God given to the world? He was given as a sacrifice on the Cross. He died so that our sins could be forgiven, so that we could be brought into a relationship with God, and so that we could be brought into a truer relationship with each other by our relationship with God. It only stands to reason that as people move closer to God they will also move closer to one another. In Jesus our relationship with God becomes stronger and deeper and our relationships with our loved ones can do the same, in God. As the apostle Paul says, Jesus loved the Church so much that he gave himself up (died) for her. This is how a man is supposed to love his wife, and this can be compared to Jesus’ love for us. He did this so he could “sanctify and cleanse it with washing of water by the word…” Jesus died so he could cleanse his people, the Church, with a washing of water. Sounds like baptism huh? Here is what Jesus says about baptism in John 3, which is the same chapter the famous “John 3:16” is found.

³ Jesus answered and said unto him, Truly, truly, I say unto thee, Except one be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ⁴ Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? ⁵ Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!

Jesus is having a conversation with a Jew who basically asked him how he can be saved and enter the Church. Jesus tells him he needs to be born again. The Jew, confused, asked how, because he knew he couldn’t literally be born a second time from his mother. Jesus had to explain what it means to be “born again.” Jesus says that no one can enter the kingdom, the Church, or “be saved” or “born again” unless he is born of water and the Spirit. This means that you cannot be saved unless you are baptized. That may sound strange because so many times you will hear the opposite, but read Jesus’ words again. That is exactly what he is saying. Logically, also, you cannot be saved unless you are part of the Church, because baptism is the ticket of entry into the Church, which Jesus loves and gives himself to completely in love as a husband would his wife. The loving relationship is therefore found in the Church, the Bride of Christ.

This “washing of water” or baptism, is not simply symbolic, according to the words of Paul in the passage from Ephesians. If you look at the passage again you will see that it says that this washing makes it possible for Jesus to essentially be able to marry a virgin bride. The washing lets Jesus take a bride “not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” Baptism then washes away original sin in our lives, and actual sin, up to the point of baptism. Just as the water washes over our body the Spirit washes over our soul and purifies us from sin. We are forgiven and saved through baptism. You see, baptism is not just being washed in water, but also washed in the Holy Spirit. Some people say that the baptism of water and the baptism in the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost, are different events. They say that if you are saved that you speak in tongues and that is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is false. The Bible never says everyone must speak in tongues. Jesus never did! Here is what the Bible says about baptism in the Spirit.

³ For we also once were foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving diverse lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. ⁴ But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared, ⁵ not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, ⁶ which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour…

This is saying without Jesus we are foolish, disobedient, deceived … When the kindness of God appeared – Jesus and his death on the cross – his grace is given to us, as a gift, and we are saved by the washing and renewing in the Holy Spirit, which is baptism. Another example is Acts 2:38. Peter just preached to a group of Jews and they ask him how to be saved. Here is his answer.

And Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the forgiveness of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Peter tells them to repent, or turn toward Jesus, be baptized, and this baptism will bring forgiveness of your sins and also give you the gift of the Holy Spirit. There are more examples in the Bible, but these give you the idea.

Finally, unity with Peter is unity with Christ. If Jesus gave pastoral leadership of the Church to Peter, then unity with Peter is important in the eyes of Jesus. The successor of Peter, or the persons who have inherited his leadership role in the Church through the centuries, are the Popes. To be united to the Church Jesus founded, and to Peter, means that in today’s world, unity with Pope Benedict XVI is part of the package of the relationship with Jesus, because Pope Benedict is charged with pastoral care of the Body of Christ, the Church, for which Jesus died and lives for today.

So does Jesus want a relgion or relationship? Jesus would not have recgonized such a seperation as legitmate.

Nobody Wants to Go Now.

I am praying for the conversion of one of my friends. I pray he converts not only to the Catholic Church, but becomes a Christian for the first time. He has a nominal Pentecostal background, having never been baptized in the Trinitarian or Pentecostal fashion, but he does express some interest in the faith. He normally is very thoughtful, that is he thinks clearly and logically. I am just afraid he is perhaps taking a queue from St. Augustine of Hippo who once said “Oh, Master, make me chaste and celibate – but not yet!” I suppose to further distill how he may feel I refer you to the following lyrics from Kenny Chesney, a country-western singer.

 

Preacher told me last Sunday mornin’

Son, you better start livin’ right

You need to quit the women and whiskey

And carrying on all night

 

Don’t you wanna hear him call your name

When you’re standin’ at the pearly gates

I told the preacher, “Yes I do”

But I hope they don’t call today

I ain’t ready

 

Everybody wants to go to heaven

Have a mansion high above the clouds

Everybody want to go to heaven

But nobody want to go now

 

Said preacher maybe you didn’t see me

Throw an extra twenty in the plate

There’s one for everything I did last night

And one to get me through today

Here’s a ten to help you remember

Next time you got the good Lord’s ear

Say I’m comin’ but there ain’t no hurry

I’m havin’ fun down here

Don’t you know that …

 

The song continues, but you get the point. We may not want to go today, but we don’t have the luxury of choosing the day or hour we are called to account.

 

During the course of several conversations and text messages I can see that he is being worked on by the Holy Spirit. At one point, for the sake of our friendship, he asked me if we could take the “bar approach” to religion. I asked him what that meant and he said that some bars ask people not to engage in conversation about religion or politics to keep the peace. Frankly, I’ve been tempted to take the “bar approach” because of how much I value or friendship, but I told him that because I value our friendship I cannot just ignore his spiritual plight. I think that came across positively to him. It’s as if our conversations, and especially the work of the Holy Spirit, are bringing him ever closer to a precipice of decision. When he reaches that precipice he can come over or he may fall backward and be a further distance from the precipice than he was before I began to try to evangelize him.

 

I’ve also noticed that I’ve been able to apologetically disarm him in several ways. For example, in a text, he mentions that he’s been to all sorts of Churches but “I’m not any of them. I believe what I believe.” He also says that “There is more than one way to skin a cat,” meaning the denomination does not matter. He is good with cars and carpentry and so on, so it came to my mind that I should use an analogy to better explain what I feel is his misunderstanding of the nature of the Catholic Church juxtaposed to denominations. I said “You don’t like Fords and you love Chevy because you say they are better, etc. Some people like Ford because they’ve never had a Chevy, or they are not mechanics, so they are content with the Ford. The same is true of the Pentecostal Church. You’ve always had it, you don’t really know anything else, so you are content. I think I found the Chevy and I want to share it with you.” I think that got the message across loud and clear, but he still fell back on “what I believe.” It occurred to me that what has happened, and we all do this really, is that the “god” he serves is a “god” he has made in his own image. This “god” bears a striking resemblance to him, his wants and desires. At the end of the day my friend’s “god” is really his slave and my friend has become the “god” in all reality. When we suppose that the God of the universe is just like us, or that “we can agree to disagree” with him on certain matters we have participated in the tragedy St. Paul speaks of in Romans chapter 1. We have “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.” We either conform to the God of all creation or we conform to the lusts of this world and fashion a god who confirms us in our lusts. So I pray, and wait, and look for future inroads of conversation. I earnestly seek my friend’s conversion, and I think if he becomes as convicted a Catholic as he is a convicted, non-practicing, Pentecostal, then we might have another St. Augustine conversion story on our hands someday.