Got Salvation?

I remember the first time I read Philippians 2:12. St. Paul’s instructions rang a bell, and once a bell rings it can never be un-rung.

“…work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”

In terms of salvation, “work out” implies some sort of process (not something that is instantaneous) and “fear and trembling” reminds us that it’s something that can be lost during said process. It seems St. Paul had a rather catholic understanding of salvation. But how does one receive salvation and eternal life? Is it really by faith alone as some might claim?

 

Perhaps the Bible alone will clear this up. St Peter’s speech at Pentecost made it clear as we read in Acts 2:38. After receiving the Holy Spirit, Peter said to the crowd “Repent and declare Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior and ask him to come into your heart and you will receive salvation this very instant with no possibility of ever losing it.” Well, that’s not exactly what St. Peter said in the Bible, in fact, it is not written anywhere in the Bible.

So, are you saved?

How does one get saved?

What must we do?

What does the Bible teach?

 

Must you repent and be baptized, right?

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 2:38

 

How about just baptism alone?

“This prefigured baptism, which saves you now...”

1 Peter 3:21

 

Belief in Jesus alone?

“Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.”

Acts 16:31

 

Belief in God alone?

“…whoever hears my word and believes in the one who sent me has eternal life and will not come to condemnation, but has passed from death to life.”

John 5:24

 

Words alone?

“I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before others the Son of Man will acknowledge before the angels of God.”

Luke 12:8

 

“By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” Mt 12:37

 

 Works alone?

“Who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works”

Romans 2:6-7

 

“See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

James 2:24

 

“…those who have done good deeds to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked deeds to the resurrection of condemnation.”

John 5:29

 

Grace alone?

“On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in the same way as they.”

Acts 15:11

 

Obedience alone?

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.”

John 3:36

 

“But if the wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed, if he keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live. He shall not die!”

Ezekiel 18:21

 

Eating alone???

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life...”

John 6:54

 

Given all this, how can anyone claim, using the Bible alone, that salvation is by one thing alone? None of the above items can be dismissed as part of our salvation process, nor can any one item be emphasized at the cost of the others.

As a side, does the Bible really teach, or do people teach? If it is people who teach, it does beg some questions about who should teach, and by what authority, and would God provide for any such authority? The answer lies in the Church that teaches the fullness of faith as well as salvation in its fullness.


You're kinda lost without it...

Let’s now get back to the mother of all questions:
Are you saved?
 

Think of a man sinking in quicksand that wants to be saved and sees a rescue team on the way. He has every confidence that he will be saved and shouts “I’m saved!”, but he is not actually saved until he’s out of the mud. It’s this same with us as we “work out” our salvation as part of the Church militant on earth with great confidence that we will one day be members of the Church triumphant in heaven.

Much of the preceding post was inspired by a book called "Crossing the Tiber" by Stephen Ray; a former non-Catholic Christian turned Catholic apologist.

 

What do you mean by...?

One of the first steps of a problem solving process is to be clear on meaning. If one were to say X is not working right or Y is acting funny, the specific meaning of “not working right” or “acting funny” must be separated and clarified. We separate to see if there is actually more than one issue being lumped together as if it were one, and we clarify to get the most specific meaning possible.

This requires a dynamic back and forth communication between the information source (the person with the problem) and the information gatherer (problem solver). A one-time static communication almost never works out well. This kind of thing was demonstrated very well by apologist Patrick Madrid in a Lighthouse Catholic Media CD using what appears to be a very straight forward and simple sentence. Consider the statement, “I didn’t say you stole the money.” It seems clear enough. What could possibly be misinterpreted about it?

• Suppose we put the emphasis on the word “I” so we have “I didn’t say you stole the money”. This could mean that I am not accusing you, but someone else is.

• Now put the emphasis on the word “you” and we have “I didn’t say YOU stole the money”. This could mean that I am not saying you did it, but I am saying someone else did.

• Put the emphasis on the word “stole” and we have “I didn’t say you STOLE the money”. This could mean that I am not saying you stole it, but I am saying you did something else with it, like wasted it.

• Put the emphasis on the word “money” and we have “I didn’t say you stole the MONEY”. This could mean that I am not saying you stole money, but I am saying you stole something else.

If you were not present to hear the emphasis on any particular word or to ask some clarifying questions, the true meaning of the statement would be lost. The same can be true of the statements found in the Bible. How do we know we have it right when we can’t go back in time and ask the author, “What do you mean by…?”

Consider a simple word like “believe” in the famous verse… “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life” (John 3:16). It goes on in verse 18… “Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” A verse from today's gospel is not as famous, but just as relevant. “Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.’” (John 6:29).

 

So what does it mean to believe? It would seem that we need to be very clear about the precise meaning of this word. Is it just an intellectual or factual belief, like believing the earth is round or believing that two and two make four? James 2:19 says “You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.” So if the demons can believe, should we believe the same way they do?
 

Other verses seem to clearly link our belief to what we do, like in James 2:20-26. These verses link what Abraham did, in offering up his son, to his belief in God (see also Romans 4:3 & Gal 3:6)

Sometimes it is helpful to think of opposites when trying to understand something. If we need to better understand the color white, it helps to study the color black. If we find out that black is the absence of visible light, it helps us to understand how white contains all the wavelengths of visible light at equal intensity. What would be the opposite of belief? Disbelief? John 3:36 suggests that disobedience is the opposite of belief, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.” Again, our belief seems to be linked to what we do, or don’t do, as opposed to merely agreeing to some concept intellectually.

This is not meant to be a biblical study on the concept of Christian Justification, but just an illustration of how static words on a page are subject to human interpretation. When our nation’s founding fathers wrote the Constitution, why did they bother to form a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution? Did they not understand what they were writing? Did they not know how to express themselves? Could not future generations just read the words and understand what to believe and what to do in terms of governing a nation?

One can argue that the Bible is the living Word of God, not dead words on paper, and the true believer is guided by the Holy Spirit to the correct interpretation. In this case, all the disagreements among Christians and all the different denominations can be explained by people not listening to or misinterpreting the Holy Spirit. Of course this begs the question, who should I listen to if I cannot question the Holy Spirit directly? I’m afraid the answer in many cases becomes “Whoever agrees with me” and thus we make ourselves God. This is why Jesus founded a Church, not a book. We could all take a lesson in humility from an Ethiopian eunuch who lived long ago. He got it!

“Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ He replied, ‘How can I, unless someone instructs me?’” (Acts 8:30-31)

 

 

Waking Up Is Hard to Do

If you were to stumble across a motionless human body, you could determine if the body was alive via signs, like a heartbeat or breathing. Observing these signs, one could say the body is alive, but only alive in a minimal sense.  A human fully alive would have many more signs of life like dancing, playing, working, loving, learning, etc.

The same is true for waking-up. Upon observing signs like siting, walking, talking, etc. one could say a person is awake, but perhaps not fully awake, like the person not fully alive. We might experience a waking up process every morning feeling tired, slow and groggy at first, but energetic after a baptism of sorts in a hot shower.

Of course the signs are never the destination. Signs always point to something else, so the signs of being fully alive or awake point to perfect being itself. If God is perfect being itself, then the glory of God is seen in a person fully alive.

Why all this talk about waking up? I recently read Waking Up Catholic by Chad Torgerson from Assisi Media. The book is geared toward those converts, reverts, or anyone just waking up Catholic, perhaps still groggy with blurred vision under the towering sky of Catholic light. The author brings his perspective based on personal experience being first an atheist, then a non-denominational Christian and then finally waking up Catholic.

I’ve heard it said that theology is the highest science. Catholic theology is bright & beautiful, but like any high science, challenging to understand, and like any bright light, difficult to see. It’s all too easy to just turn way from a bright light or to simply mock what we do not understand. Chad’s book presents a very readable overview of the aspects of Catholicism that are thorny to non-Catholic Christians or just unknown to anyone unfamiliar with the faith.

• On Sacred Tradition: Learn about tradition with a capital “T” that ultimately comes from God (not men). How important is it to understand this correctly? Well, it’s only the major dividing factor between Catholics and other Christians. Although Christ’s revelation is complete, our understanding of it continues to grow and mature through the centuries and this is where Sacred Tradition comes into play.

Examples are most helpful:

How does the Word of God come to us? How did Adam & Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac & Jacob pass on the Word of God? They had no scriptures (no Torah). It was via tradition. How did the early Christians pass on the Word of God before the New Testament was written; at Bible study? No, it was via tradition. Even today, how does the canon of the Bible come to us? It comes from Sacred Tradition. How do we know that? We know that because the Bible itself does not attest to its own canon.

Instructions NOT found

How does the teaching of the Trinity come to us? The Bible? No, it comes from Sacred Tradition. The word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible and there are verses that imply Jesus is not God. Additionally, the Holy Spirit can easily be interpreted as an allegory for the power of God, not an actual third person.

How does the teaching of marriage as one man and one woman come to us? The Bible? No, once again it comes from Sacred Tradition. There is nothing in scripture that says a man cannot have more than one wife.

• On the Guardians of the Faith: Learn the truth about ministerial priesthood and other religious orders that preach and teach the gospel and serve the needy. No other Church has the rich history and long standing teachings of the Catholic Church. The gates of Hell have not prevailed thanks to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If we are the body of the Church, the guardians are surly the backbone!

• On Mary and the Saints: The Catholic teachings on Mary and the saints are just as true as any other Sacred Tradition mentioned above. Learn the difference between worshiping and venerating and learn why this doesn’t need to be such a deep & complicated point of division.

• On the Eucharist: Learn how this is a standing or falling point (see John 6:60 & 66). See how the author woke up to an amazing truth instead of turning away from it forever.

• On Confession: Dig into the Biblical roots of Jesus passing on his authority to forgive sins on to mere men and how the earliest Christians confessed their sins to one another. Beyond this, the scriptures are clear about mortal sins (or deadly sins) and those that are not deadly. Even for those who hold tight to Bible alone theology, there is no denying the distinctions in sin and that some cannot be simply “prayed away” (see 1 John 5:16-17).

• On Action: Get tips on who should evangelize, why evangelize and how to evangelize. The clergy shepherd the flock, but it’s our job to help it grow. Just as someone once planted a seed in you, you should plant a seed (or two) in others. Why? The author summed it up well. “The world is crumbing underneath the weight of selfish desires and sinful lifestyles. Now more than ever, society needs to re-embrace Christ as her Savior.”

I'm often surprised how many Catholics don't know that the word Catholic comes from the Greek word “katholikos”, which means universal, and what an appropriate word that is. To wake up Catholic is to find yourself in a universal Church that was founded for everyone. Universal, not in the sense of accepting everything, but to understand everything as God reveals it to be; to wake up to the fullness of faith; a worldwide light so bright that it reveals the grains of truth contained in everything else.

What's Your Trigger?

I recently finished a book called “By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition” written by Mark Shea. Mark even signed it for me over at one of his favorite places and mine, Marytown. The book made me think of “triggers”.

NO, not this Trigger!!!

Some background explanation would be helpful:

I deal with some complex problem solving (troubleshooting) for a living. To do this effectively one needs to be very cognizant of what is fact vs. what is opinion vs. what is an assumption; an awareness of what mental “lens” you are viewing a problem through is needed because we all see things through filters. This is not a bad thing as long as you are aware of the filters.

Once a seemly complex problem is separated & clarified into manageable items, you can ask a simple question which can eventually lead you to the root of things. Ask “What’s your trigger?” In other words, what are you experiencing that tells you there is a problem?

 

This is what I'm talking about.

 

Everyday Examples:

Ø  Someone says, “I have a problem. My car is out of alignment.”

Question: What’s your trigger? What are you experiencing that tells you your car is out of alignment?

 

Answer: While driving, the car pulls to the left.

 

There are different things that can cause a car to pull to one side, like low tire pressure on one side for example. Being “out of alignment” is actually an assumption which could be true or false. You’ve heard of jumping to conclusions; where I work, this would be called a “jump-to-cause”

 

Ø  Someone says, “I have a burned-out light bulb.”

Question: What’s your trigger? What are you experiencing that tells you there is a burned out light bulb?

Answer: I turn on the light switch and there is no light.

There are different things that can cause a light not to turn on other than a burnt bulb.  A brunt out bulb is another assumption or jump-to-cause.

Understanding triggers also helps with evangelization.
Religious Examples:

Ø  Someone says, “The Catholic Church hates gay people.”

Question: What’s your trigger? What are you experiencing that tells you the Catholic Church hates gay people?

Answer: They are against same-sex marriage and that’s just mean.

An informed person will know that the Church defining marriage as one man & one woman has nothing to do with hating anyone, but has everything to do with marriage being something permanent, unitive, mutually exclusive AND PROCREATIVE.

 

Ø  Someone says, “Catholics worship statues.”

Question: What’s your trigger? What are you experiencing that tells you Catholics worship statues?

Answer: I saw a Catholic kneeling in front of a statue.

 

Though kneeling is used as a posture in worship, not all kneeling is worship; it can just be an indication of respect.

 

 

So what does any of this have to do with an Evangelical Christian discovering Catholic Sacred Tradition? The author of the book was an Evangelical Christian (now Catholic) when he came across the teachings of the some modernist Christians (i.e. The Jesus Seminar) who taught things like:

Ø  The miracles of the Jesus (walking on water, multiplication of loaves/fish, the resurrection, etc.) are not to be taken literally, they are parables told in dramatic form to make a spiritual point.

Ø  St. Paul’s self-loathing, self-criticism, and his sense of being controlled by something he had no power to change could only be explained by the fact that he was a homosexual in denial of the truth.

Ø  Mary giving birth as a virgin is a false tradition. In fact, it was probably made-up by the early Christians to cover-up a rape or some other unthinkable scandal.

Ø  The canon of scripture is another false human tradition that left out many good writings like the Gospel of Thomas, the Didache and the epistles of Barnabas & Ignatius, just to name a few.


Meet the Modernists

Of course, a good Evangelical Christian will be prepared to defend “true” Bible Christianity, inspired by 1 Peter 3:15, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” The first three points above can be argued, more or less, using the Bible ALONE, but the fourth point poses a serious problem to which we can ask our question, “What’s your trigger?” or “What are you experiencing that tells you there is a problem?”

Instructions for canon NOT found.

The trigger for this case is the fact that the Bible is not self-attesting to its own canon. Why exactly would a non-Catholic Christian accept the present canon of biblical books as something other than human tradition?  As the author states in his book, without a clear answer to this question a “purely biblical argument for Christianity was a series of neatly fashioned logic links attached to a hook hanging on a nail hammered firmly into…nothing.”

Beyond the canon of scripture there are other doctrines firmly held by non-Catholic Christians that are not explicitly found in the Bible. Marriage should be defined as one man and one woman, right? You may be surprised to learn that there is nothing in scripture that says a man cannot have more than one wife. In fact, when this question was posed to Martin Luther he said, “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife, he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God”.

How about the doctrine of the Trinity? There are plenty of verses in scripture that seem to hint that Jesus is NOT God, and the Holy Spirit could be seen as just an allegory for power of God, NOT an actual third person. The author flashed back to a Christian radio talk show he once heard where a caller was giving the host good Arian-type arguments that say Jesus was not God. After a lot of back and forth with various scripture verses, the radio host basically fell back on an interpretive Christian tradition as the final authority, saying that the caller’s interpretation is not consistent with Christian history. After all, how could twenty centuries of an interpretive tradition be wrong, and the caller’s interpretation be right?
 

As mentioned, we view reality through mental lenses or filters which is natural and not a big obstacle as long as we have an awareness of them. As we have seen, non-Catholic Christians can be so focused on the Bible that they forget all about the interpretive lens through which they read the Bible. As Catholics, we can be so out of touch with our own faith that selfishness, secularism and politics become our interpretive lens.

Thinking about triggers can also help clarify the circumstances involving non-practicing Catholics. They’re not practicing for a reason because every effect has a cause. Whether it’s something specific like a divorce or bad childhood experience, or something general like the “Don’t Know, Don’t Care” church policy. Once you know the triggers, you can start working on the answers.

In closing, I’ll leave you with a quote from the end of the book which has some striking & beautiful imagery about the fullness of the Catholic faith:

“I found my little kernel of Bible-only wheat, once dead, put down roots as deep as the whole of Sacred Tradition and grew up under the towering sky of Catholic light into a Christian faith far stronger, greener, and more fruitful than ever before – and one more rooted in inspired scripture than it ever was.”

 

That's Not in the Bible: Contemporary Dilemmas with Sola Scriptura

Some time ago, I had a religious discussion with a co-worker that took on an unexpected twist. We were out at a local pub after the last day of a logic class I teach to our company’s support staff about problem-solving and decision-making. One of the members asked me, “So what else do you teach?” I responded, “Some technical product training and some religious education, specifically, confirmation class…I’m Catholic.” He said inquisitively, “Really?” I said, “Really.” He went on to tell me about how he gave his life to God a few years back and how it has completely changed his life; he described himself as a born again Christian.

As the discussion continued, he began to express his frustration with other Christians that do or teach things that are not found in the bible. I set down my beer, sat-up straight, took a breath and began to brace myself for what you know would be next. I was expecting him to barrage me with a litany of things Catholics do or teach that are not (explicitly) found in the Bible, but it never came up. Instead he began to complain to me about other “born again” Christians.

He is a member of what Catholics would call a parish council over at his church. He complained that his pastor taught that ANY consumption of alcohol was sinful. One drink leads to two; two will lead to three, and so on. Therefore, starting this process with even one drink would be sinful even if you stopped at one. A Catholic might call this kind of reasoning inviting the “occasion of sin”. There is some logic there, but my coworker had a big problem with this. The problem was not that he likes alcoholic drinks. His objection was, “that’s not in the Bible”.

Were you just applauding?
Really?

On another occasion he was invite to a piano performance by his niece during a worship service at his brothers’ non-denominational church. He began to applaud after the performance, but immediately noticed that no one else was applauding. Additionally, he received some icy stares as he began to applaud. Afterward, it was explained to him that during a worship service they only applaud for God. Applauding for others in church is taking away praise from God and is wrong. My colleague had a big problem with this also. Once again, the objection was “that’s not in the Bible”.

I thought to myself, "All Christian churches will do or teach things not specifically found in the Bible. What clear, real-world examples of how the teaching of Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) relentlessly affronts reason". Bible Christians do not actually use the bible alone; they use the bible along with whatever interpretations their leaders may have, and different interpretations results in different denominations as a natural consequence. I was going to tell him that using ONLY the Bible is also something that’s not in the Bible, but I was afraid he might self-destruct right there in front of me.

 

Instead, I went on to talk about how scripture is subject to different interpretations and how the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus actually founded one, and only one, universal Church for everybody; a visible & authoritative Church that uses imperfect men, together with the Holy Spirit, to guide us in faith & morals. If there really is a God and He really cares about people, He would provide a way for us to know what is true or what to believe (faith), and how to behave (morals). A good Father would not just leave a book behind and for us to “figure out”; a good Father would not leave His children as orphans.

This got his attention on Catholicism, but he suddenly changed the subject to the 2nd coming of Christ. He said, “I believed Jesus is coming back very soon. What’s the Catholic take on that?” I mentioned Mat 24:36 “But of that day and hour, no one knows…”, but also added a twist of my own for him to think about.

I told him that some Catholic thinkers speculate that since the 1st coming of Jesus came through Mary, it is conceivable that His 2nd coming will also come through Mary, except this time He would not come as a helpless baby. This could explain some of the increased Marian activity and apparitions around the world in the last couple of centuries as a kind of “spiritual pregnancy” for the 2nd coming (I also made it clear that is only speculation, not formal Catholic teaching). He said, “You know, that makes a lot of sense. I’ve never thought of that before”. Since he did not do very well in the class, I thought to myself, "I bet there are many things you’ve never thought of before".


On the surface, bible alone Christianity might make more sense than Catholicism to a believer that just wants to praise God and “be saved”, but as one asks probing questions about both faith & reason that go deeper and deeper, a reversal takes place. Catholicism stands-up to battering questions like that house built on rock we read about in Matthew 7:24-27. Bible alone Christianity crumbles like a biblical house built on sand.

Truth Balloon

If you ever had a habit of lying, you may have noticed how the truth tends to rise to the surface in time. It almost seems to be a natural law of sorts.  The tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive ironically helps to catch the truth. A visual metaphor better than a web may be one of those long party balloons clowns make animals out of.

 

The balloon itself can represent our world or the reality which we can see. Air can be “Truth” which we do not see directly; we see the effects. One can squeeze-out the air in a certain part of the balloon, but it still exists; it pops-up somewhere else in the balloon, although perhaps in another form. We can try to suppress Truth in our individual life or in society, but it still exists and will eventually show up somewhere else.

This metaphor can be applied to Protestants/Evangelicals throughout history that have attempted to "squeeze out" Christian Tradition. The kind of Tradition that ultimately comes from God (not the traditions of men); the kind Catholics might spell with a capital “T”

Ø  Squeeze out the Pope, get “The Bible Answer Man”

 

Ø  Squeeze out the Magisterium of Catholic Bishops, get the Baptist General Director of Missions

We have a need for human authority; this is why Jesus set up a visible on earth Church with people in charge.  Bible churches do not use the Bible as their sole authority; they are also using whatever biblical interpretation their church leaders interpret. The Bible doesn’t actually “teach”, just as a math book does not teach; people do the teaching. If I handed some students an algebra book, told them to join an algebra study group and pray hard for understanding with no algebra teacher, how well would they do on the final exam? How well would they truly understand?

I once heard a minister say that the only proper interpreter of scripture is scripture itself. This reminded me of when I was a kid asking how to spell a word and being told to look it up in the dictionary. I would say to myself in frustration…”But I can’t spell the word, so how can I look it up”. It also reminded me of Acts 8:30-31 “Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?”

 

Of course, some Christians will say that the Holy Spirit does the guiding, teaching and interpreting for them individually. This would be somewhat reasonable if there were only two Christian denominations in the world, the misguided (or evil) Catholic Church and one true and holy “Bible Church”. The reality of course, is that there are thousands of Christian denominations that claim “Truth” from the Bible and yet teach different things. So it all begs the question, “Which Bible Answer Man or General Directors should we listen to?”

Ø  Squeeze out the Eucharist, get the altar call.

There is something about going to an altar to receive Jesus publicly that just won’t go away!

 

Ø  Squeeze out the Rosary, get the Prayer of Jabez

The Prayer of Jabez comes from 1 Chronicles 4:10 “Now Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying, Oh that You would bless me indeed and enlarge my border, and that Your hand might be with me, and that You would keep me from harm that it may not pain me!" And God granted him what he requested.”

The prayer is composed of four parts. First, Jabez asks God to bless him. Second, he asks God to enlarge his territory or increase his responsibility. Third, he prays that God will be with him and stay close. Lastly, Jabez asks that God keep him from harm so that he will be free from pain. Like the Rosary, Christians are encouraged to say the Prayer of Jabez on a daily basis so it can become a treasured and lifelong habit.

SIDE NOTE: I do wonder if a Christian who prays this daily could ever accept the spiritual value of suffering that all of us can share with Christ.

Both the Rosary and the Prayer of Jabez are criticized for vain repetition (see Matthew 6:7). Stop and think of repetition for a moment (OK, that’s enough). Did you think of day and night repeating over and over, seasons coming and going, breathing air in and out or your heart beating again and again? What is vain is vain, but repetition with meaning brings life.

All of this is not just about Protestants & Evangelicals reinventing the wheel, it is about the Truth finding its way to the surface!

Inspiration for this post comes from a talk I heard by a fine fellow named Ian Murphy during my recent stay At Catholic Familyland. He has a fascinating conversion story going from Agnostic to Baptist to Catholic.

Fascinating Conversion Story Part I:

 

Fascinating Conversion Story Part II:

All Statements are False!

If the title of this post is true, it must also be false since it too is a statement. It is a self-contained contradiction. It fails a basic rule of logic called the principle of non-contradiction. The only way to reconcile it logically would be to say, “All statements are false except this one.” From here we would need to explore and question the premises and sources for the exception. The point of this post is not to play word games, but to help us think through the things we believe in.

Let’s look at some more…..

Ø  A Square Circle: This is fairly simple to understand.  It is not possible to have a geometric shape that fits the definition of both a square and a circle at the same time.

Ø  An Achieved Unachievable:  Also simple. If you achieved it, it cannot be unachievable.

Ø  All Truth is Relative:  We’ll need to think harder now. For this statement to be true it must also be something relative, which by definition cannot be universally true.

Ø  Truth is Unknowable: Is this statement true? How can we know for sure if truth is unknowable?

Ø  Nothing is True:  Very similar to the title of this post; if true, it must also be false.

Ø  The Bible Alone is True (Sola Scriptura): A contraction arises because “Bible Alone” is not found in the Bible. We need to go to some source outside the Bible to get it. It is unbiblical as well as illogical. Additionally, we find scripture like 1Timothy 3:15, where the pillar & foundation of truth is said to be The Church, not scripture itself.

Here’s one on Papal Infallibility just for fun…..

Ø  No person can be “infallible”: If true, no person could declare this “infallibly”.

Self-contained contractions are also used as amateur attempts to mock the existence of God. For example, “Can God make a four sided triangle?” or “Can God make a weight so heavy that He cannot lift it?” These kinds of things are meaningless. In a certain sense they are nothing…………. and nothing is impossible with God!!

WARNING: Contemplating the photo below can lead to insanity. It’s really nothing. Just let it go.