Why I'm Catholic (Sola Scriptura leads atheist to Catholic Church)

Et Tu ^ | October 23, 2007 | Jennifer F.

[NYer]

When I was 26, I had never once believed in God. Raised entirely without religion, I was a contented atheist and thought it was simply obvious that God did not exist. I thought that religion and reason were incompatible, and was baffled by why anyone would believe in God (I actually suspected that few people really did). After a few years in the Bible Belt, I became vocally anti-Christian. Imagine my surprise to find myself today, just three years later, a practicing Catholic who loves her faith (I entered the Church at Easter 2007). This is the chronicle of my journey.

---

I am asked with increasing frequency why I converted to Catholicism as opposed to one of the other Christian denominations. Though this blog is sort of one long conversion story, I've never put together a post summarizing that part of my journey because that subject matter can be a hot (and divisive) topic.

Also, these types of posts are often interpreted to have an implication that people who have had different experiences and have come to different conclusions about religion and God are wrong and therefore not going to be saved. I want to make it really clear that that is not what I believe (nor what the Church believes -- in fact, one of the many things that resonated as true about Catholic teaching is the belief that non-Catholics and non-Christians could also go to heaven).

Anyway, I've decided to go ahead and write about that part of the conversion process, but I want to add a big disclaimer that I'm sharing this in the spirit of telling my story. I am far too concerned about what I see happening in the world today to have any interest in causing division among Christians. We're in this together.

As always, please take this for what it is: the ramblings of some fool with an internet connection. :) Take it (and everything else I write) with a grain of salt.

-------------------

My search for God really began in earnest when I started reading up on Christianity. For a couple years I'd been making half-hearted attempts to open my mind to the possibility of God's existence but it never really went anywhere. And then I stumbled across some reasonable Christian writers who laid out a logical case for Jesus having actually existed, the events as described in the New Testament having actually happened, and for Jesus being who he said he was (former atheist Lee Strobel's Case for Christ has a nice, quick summary). Not that these authors "proved" their case irrefutably or that no arguments could be made against them, but they had a much more compelling, evidence-based case than I'd thought they had. I was intrigued.

I decided to see what it meant to be a Christian. Some bad childhood experiences had left me with a bad taste in my mouth about the religion, but I decided to give it my best effort to start fresh, exploring this belief system with an open mind. I bought a copy of the Bible.

Before I even opened the cover, we had a problem.

I wanted to know if the people who did the English translation of this version were said to have been inspired by God as the writers of the original texts were. When I found out the answer was no, I was concerned. Translators have a lot of leeway and can really impact a text. If this book could potentially be the key to people knowing or not knowing God, I was uneasy about reading a 21st century English version of texts that were written in far different cultures thousands of years ago, translated by average people. Could God not have inspired all translators? Though I was concerned, I decided to set the issue aside for the time being and move on.

Somewhere around page two, we had another problem.

I found the creation story fit surprisingly well with what we know of the origin of the universe through science, albeit in symbolic form. I could definitely believe that this was true. I could not, however, believe that it was a journalistic style account of events, like something you'd read in the newspaper. So I immediately needed to know: is it required of Christians to believe that Genesis is to be taken literally? I asked people and looked around online, and quickly found that there was not unanimous agreement on this. I found people who laid out a pretty good case that, yes, it is required of Christians to believe that Genesis is a literal, blow-by-blow description of events that happened about 6,000 years ago; yet others made a good case that Christians should believe that it is truth conveyed through symbolism. I really couldn't tell who I should believe.

I decided to move on and get to what I really wanted to know about: the Christian moral code. One of the things that had originally piqued my interest in religion in the first place was the fact that humans throughout history have all had this same sense that objective truth exists, what is "right" and "wrong" is not subjective. Also, I had begun to feel confused and lost when I looked at the world around me. This was around the time of the Terri Schiavo controversy, and when I tried to weigh issues like that, as well as the other big ethical dilemmas like human cloning, research on embryos, etc. I just felt sad and adrift. I really didn't know what was right or wrong, yet I had this vague sense that a true "right" answer must be out there somewhere. If there was a God, surely he had opinions about these things. And surely he could guide me to find them.

So I picked the Bible back up and continued reading.

One example of the type of answers I was searching for was what Christianity had to say about abortion. At the time I considered myself staunchly "pro-choice", yet something had started to nag at me about that position. I felt uneasy about the whole thing, and wanted to know if Christianity said that God is OK with abortion or not. I read through the New Testament (eventually reading it cover to cover), and couldn't find much. I kept instinctively flipping to the last page for some sort of answer key. How was I supposed to find the part where God tells us what he thinks about terminating pregnancies? Someone recommended that I get a concordance. I was happy to do that, but it felt strange: in order to know how to live as a Christian you need a Bible and a concordance? And were the writers of the concordance inspired? What if they missed something big or made a mistake?

I wasn't coming up with much so I Googled around to see what Christians had to say about it. And I found as many different opinions as I found people, everyone offering Bible verses to back up their claims. Each person stated their interpretation confidently as a fact -- yet they contradicted one another. When I looked up the verses they cited in my own Bible, sometimes I felt they were right-on, other times I felt they were taken out of context, and other times I didn't even know what the context was (e.g. some Old Testament verses where I just had no idea what was going on).

What frequently happened when I was looking for Biblical answers to my ethical dilemmas was that I'd read two contradictory opinions from two different Christians. I'd decide that Christian #1 made the best case based on Scripture, so I had my answer. But then Christian #2 would come back with a new verse that I'd never seen before that shed new light on it, and then I'd think his case must be the right one. And then Christian #1 would come up with yet another verse and I'd think he had the right answer. And then...well, you get the idea. It seemed that in order to form my own opinion about any of these issues I'd have to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible to make sure I didn't miss anything.

So I started reading. I decided to skip ahead to the New Testament since that's where Jesus comes in. And, as with the Old Testament, we quickly had a problem. Here is a sort of sample discussion I'd have with whatever Christian I could find to pester with questions:

ME: Ack! I just read this part in the New Testament where Jesus tells some rich dude he has to give away all his stuff! If I decide this Christianity thing is true am I going to have to give away all my stuff?! [Worried glace at brand new Dell Inspiron laptop.]

FRIEND: Hah! No, don't worry, Jesus was just talking to that one guy.

ME: Where does it say that? Does he later clarify that that instruction was only for that one guy?

FRIEND: No, but that's clearly how he meant it.

ME: That's not clear to me. Anyway, there's this part where he tells this woman Martha that her sister Mary did the right thing by putting Jesus before trivial stuff. Was that only a lesson for her?

CHRISTIAN: No, that's a lesson for all of us.

ME: [Flipping to last page to look for answer key.] Where is that clarified?

This usually ended with my Christian acquaintances telling me to let the Holy Spirit guide me (and probably making a mental note to find less annoying friends). Even though I wasn't sure I believed in God, I had been praying through this whole process. So I prayed for guidance. I asked God to lead me to the right conclusion about all these questions, to speak to me through Scripture about everything from abortion and experimentation on human embryos to whether or not I needed to give away all my stuff.

After a while of praying, reading the Bible, and visiting some churches, I felt like I had some conclusions. I decided that a good Biblical case could be made for "a woman's right to choose" (as I thought of it then), that I didn't need to give away all my stuff, that it was probably OK to experiment on embryos if it was for curing diseases, etc. I'd felt led to these conclusions, presumably by God, and had found some scriptures that would seem to support them.

But something didn't feel right.

As I continued thinking and praying about whether or not I'd come to the right conclusions about what God wants for us, I realized what the problem was, the reason I couldn't relax: I couldn't trust myself. You have to understand, I am a seriously sinful, selfish person. I realized that my self-serving nature severely clouded my ability to be confident in my interpretation Scripture. I had some pretty passionate opinions about all of these issues, and it was so hard to tell what was leading me to my conclusions. Was my decision that the Bible would be OK with me continuing in my comfy American lifestyle led by the "Holy Spirit" or "Jen's seriously deep desire not to give away all her stuff"? I couldn't tell.

My confusion about all of this made me wonder how people who are severely unintelligent could use the Bible as their guide. I'm probably in the middle of the Bell curve on intelligence, and I was really struggling. For that matter, what about the illiterate? Widespread literacy is a relatively recent phenomenon, yet people who couldn't read couldn't use the Bible as their guide. They'd have to go through another, fallible person, which seemed dangerous.

Taking all of this as a whole, the writing was on the wall, so to speak. Christianity did not seem to be the path to God, if he even did exist. At least not for me. I was just too sinful, too selfish to trust myself to get it right. I felt as adrift as ever in terms of the big ethical questions of our day. Though I thought I might have "experienced" God or the Holy Spirit or something from outside the material world a few times in my exploration, using the Christian holy book to find out how God would want me to live was just not working. I was leaning towards moving on to the next religion, seeking God through some other belief system. I prayed for guidance.


Around this time someone told me that one of the Christian denominations claimed that God did leave us this "answer key" I'd been yearning for. I found out that the Catholic Church claimed to be a sort of divinely-guided Supreme Court, that God guided this Church to be inerrant in its official proclamations about what is right and wrong, how to interpret the Bible, how to know Jesus Christ, and all other questions of God and what he wants us to do.

That got my attention.

Clearly there was a need for this. Surely I was not the only person to ever feel lost in the world, unable to trust myself to objectively interpret the Bible to discern what God wants from us, unable to clearly tell which of my conclusions about right and wrong were guided by the Holy Spirit and which were guided by deeply-rooted selfishness (or perhaps something worse).

Now, obviously I wasn't going to become Catholic. I mean, the Catholic Church is weird and antiquated and sometimes the people in it do seriously bad stuff. But I was interested to at least explore this line of thinking and see what I found.

I could have never, ever imagined what I'd find. Reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church was like nothing I'd ever experienced. This was truth. I knew it. I'd finally found it. It described God, our relationship to him, the Bible, Jesus, moral truths -- the entire human experience -- in a way that resonated on a deep level.

When I started living my life according to Catholic teaching the proof was, as they say, in the pudding. It worked. It worked better than I could have ever guessed it would. And since I've been able to receive what they say is really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, my soul, my entire life, has changed profoundly. But that is whole separate story (and, really, the main subject of this blog). To summarize my experience, I leave you with a quote from G.K. Chesterton, writing about why he converted to orthodox Catholicism:

I do it because the [Catholic Church] has not merely told this truth or that truth, but has revealed itself as a truth-telling thing. All other philosophies say the things that plainly seem to be true; only this philosophy has again and again said the thing that does not seem to be true, but is true. Alone of all creeds it is convincing where it is not attractive; it turns out to be right, like my father in the garden.

My thoughts exactly.

Again, I share this not to cause division, but for the same reason anyone talks about anything they love -- that mysterious desire we all have to shout from the rooftops about the things that we find to be profound, beautiful, and true.

[papertyger]

No, this was just a cheap shot at Calvinists taken by the poster.

Why do you call this a "cheap shot?"

[papertyger]

Yes cheap shot, but it wasn't just directed at Calvinists.

I do not understand how a total pagan who converts to Christianity, and concludes the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is untenable, constitutes a "cheap shot."

[GoLightly]

I do not understand how a total pagan who converts to Christianity, and concludes the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is untenable, constitutes a "cheap shot."

Atheists aren't pagans & visa versa. We should all rejoice about an atheist converting to Christianity, not using her conversion as an opportunity to take a shot at some of the beliefs of other Christians, a common result in most threads of the conversion articles posted.

Sola Scriptura didn't lead the woman anywhere. "Putting words" into the mouth of the convert (the addition to the title) is an ugly passive aggressive tactic.

If Sola Scriptura is untenable for her, you or anyone else & the discipline of hierarchal authority is what y'all need, it works for you, that's fine. Trying to make it into a requirement for all is crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.

[Between the Lines]

The Bible is a Catholic Book. It is a common fact that the Bible was put together in 397 AD at the Council Of Carthage by the Catholic Church and ratified by Pope Boniface.

I have a friend who has put together a complete anthology of the Beatles music on his iPod, that does not mean that it is his music, just that he collected it.

After that there was no argument as to what books where in the Bible among Christians until Luther’s reformation in the 1500.

LOL. Always there have been variations, always will be.

[papertyger]

Atheists aren't pagans ...

If atheists aren't pagans, then the word has no meaning.

Sola Scriptura didn't lead the woman anywhere. "Putting words" into the mouth of the convert (the addition to the title) is an ugly passive aggressive tactic.

No one claimed it did. That is an ugly "straw man."

There is nothing wrong with addind the colloquial term to the conclusions of a new believer when those conclusions are identical. Would you get upset if "communion" was added to her tale of receiving the body and blood?

Trying to make it into a requirement for all is crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.

According to whom, and why not?

[papertyger]

Always there have been variations, always will be.

I'm not aware of any substantive controversy. Could you cite one?

[GoLightly]

I have a challenge to you & all other Christians around here, whoever reads this post. Rather than talking about converts, might be worthy use of some of our energy to work on converting someone.

I wandered over to YouTube yesterday & happened across a couple of potential candidates. The video was a Copt explaining the Trinity on al Jazerra (sp). On the surface, they look like they’d be resistant, but, something in the video drew them in. I think that taking the discussion to PM there would work better than getting into the public discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=rBCEnHOn1gI&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DrBCEnHOn1gI

[Between the Lines]

Trusting the Church IS trusting other Christians. DUH!

Perhaps I should have said she did not trust individual Christians.

Of course, you don't have to actually believe that anything Jesus said is the truth.

Sadly you list of Jesus' quotes from the Bible would not have done Jennifer any good. Unlike you, she does not trust the Bible nor would she trust an individual Christians such as yourself. The only way that Jennifer will accept anything you have to say about Jesus is if you hold the "answer key" as an official representative of that divinely-guided Supreme Court, the Church. Unless you have the authority to speak for the Church, all of your wisdom is lost on Jennifer.

Though I do think that she would appreciate your sarcasm.

[old and tired]

You are, of course, correct. For awhile, the Pro-Life movement was bringing together different Christians, however, Islam has the potential to unite us like nothing else.

[PAR35]

Why do you call this a "cheap shot?"

1.Because Sola Scriptura is one of the 5 solas of the reformation.
2.The comment was added by the poster, and doesn't appear in the original article or its headline.
3.It appears that the original writer had not been exposed to any of the reformed bodies - she turned to Rome because they had a written catechism, but she makes no mention of having been exposed to the confessions and catechisms of the reformed bodies, meaning it is unlikely anything in the theology of Luther or Calvin lead her to Rome.

I will concede that my use of 'Calvinists' in my reply was too narrow; I should have used 'Reformed' to have included the Lutherans as well.

[GoLightly]

If atheists aren't pagans, then the word has no meaning.

From New Advent - Paganism, in the broadest sense includes all religions other than the true one revealed by God, and, in a narrower sense, all except Christianity, Judaism, and Mohammedanism. The term is also used as the equivalent of Polytheism.

Atheism (a privative, and theos, God, i.e. without God).

Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. Since its first coming into use the term atheism has been very vaguely employed, generally as an epithet of accusation against any system that called in question the popular gods of the day.

No one claimed it did. That is an ugly "straw man."

What does the part of the title added in brackets mean if it doesn't mean what it says?

There is nothing wrong with addind the colloquial term to the conclusions of a new believer when those conclusions are identical.

If the title had said something along the line of, "Disillusionment with Sola Scriptura led", it would have been supported by the article. Sola Scriptura didn't lead her anywhere. Her inability to connect with it did.

Would you get upset if "communion" was added to her tale of receiving the body and blood?

Depends on the way it was added.

According to whom, and why not?

You're quite free to do it & when you do, like every other kind of insult you dish out to others, it may generate a certain amount of backlash.

[GoLightly]

Islam has the potential to unite us like nothing else.

Sadly, too many Christians are off somewhere, looking for more oil for their lamps.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I found the creation story fit surprisingly well with what we know of the origin of the universe through science, albeit in symbolic form. I could definitely believe that this was true. I could not, however, believe that it was a journalistic style account of events, like something you'd read in the newspaper. So I immediately needed to know: is it required of Christians to believe that Genesis is to be taken literally? I asked people and looked around online, and quickly found that there was not unanimous agreement on this. I found people who laid out a pretty good case that, yes, it is required of Christians to believe that Genesis is a literal, blow-by-blow description of events that happened about 6,000 years ago; yet others made a good case that Christians should believe that it is truth conveyed through symbolism. I really couldn't tell who I should believe.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why atheists become Catholics and not Fundamentalist Protestants!

Does she really believe that "real presence" stuff? Maybe science should investigate and make a definitive pronouncement (like they did on the creation of the universe)!

[papertyger]

Because Sola Scriptura is one of the 5 solas of the reformation.

This is still not an explaination of cheat shot.

The comment was added by the poster, and doesn't appear in the original article or its headline.

Same as above.

It appears that the original writer had not been exposed to any of the reformed bodies - she turned to Rome because they had a written catechism, but she makes no mention of having been exposed to the confessions and catechisms of the reformed bodies, meaning it is unlikely anything in the theology of Luther or Calvin lead her to Rome.

I see no basis for such a conclusion. Clearly her exposure to Bible-only advocates implies non-catholic influence.

[wideawake]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why atheists become Catholics and not Fundamentalist Protestants!

More accurately, this was one contributing factor to a particular atheist's decision to embrace Catholicism.

If this were her sole criterion, nothing would have prevented her from becoming a Methodist.

After all, nothing in Methodism authorizes an allegorical view of Genesis, but many Methodists still understand Genesis in this way.

[GoLightly]

I see no basis for such a conclusion. Clearly her exposure to Bible-only advocates implies non-catholic influence.

Sola Scriptura does not mean Bible-only.

[Between the Lines]

Well there is that 1 2 3 4 Esdras thing that no one agrees on how to number or which is in or out.

[dangus]

Now you know why Catholics make such fine Supreme Court justices. Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito are all Catholic. :^D

[GoLightly]

Maybe science should investigate and make a definitive pronouncement (like they did on the creation of the universe)!

They've done it, tho I think it was only the body & blood that was transformed for one particular priest. The result was blood type AB.

[GoLightly]

Now you know why Catholics make such fine Supreme Court justices. Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito are all Catholic.

Know if any of them got their training from the Jesuits?