Posted on 08/08/2006 12:04:25 PM PDT by NYer
Once a Southern Baptist pastor, Michael Cumbie converted to Catholicism in 2001 and has since been traveling far from his hometown near Pensacola, Florida, to preach his new faith to the nation. At Saint Therese Catholic Church in San Diego for a "renewal mission" this April, he spent three evenings speaking about his conversion, Catholic worship, and the Eucharist. About 200 hundred came to listen the last evening's talk. While he gathered his materials after his energetic presentation, I asked him some questions on the same topics.
Can you say something about the experience of the Holy Spirit in your life that put you on the path to Catholicism?
"Most Catholics and Protestants are familiar with the charismatic renewal, that came to all Christianity in the '70s. It was a big renewing of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, a little different from Pentecostalism, which started in the early 1900s. That movement of the Holy Spirit seemed to be of the less educated and maybe poorer people. Many folks would never have gone to one of those kinds of gatherings of people speaking in tongues and prophesying. But then in the '70s that experience of Pentecost which the Catholic Church celebrates every year, started to invade those mainline churches of educated people. Intellectual Christians started having the same experience that the Pentecostals did. I was swept up in that movement. But also, as a Southern Baptist, we did not believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit, that they still operated today or were meant for today. But when I was in college I got around a group of young people that just had such a powerful presence of Christ in their lives. I'd never seen that. All Christians I knew up to that time were pretty much all the same -- I use the little analogy all the time, 'you don't know there are any hundred watt light bulbs if you're always around forty watt light bulbs.' So I got around all these hundred watt light bulbs and I noticed how much brighter their light was, if I can say it that way, and it just really drove me crazy. After about three months I said to these folks, 'You know, you guys have something I don't have. You're Christians, I'm a Christian, I believe that, but you've got some secret. I sense this powerful presence, and besides that you have such understanding of the Bible even though you've never been to Bible college,' and they said, 'Michael, it's the Holy Spirit'. Then they used the term 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' and I'd never heard of that, and to make a long story short we went through hours and hours of theological discussion. Because it was against my training and teaching as a Southern Baptist, they had a lot to overcome to try to convince me that this was a Biblical, Scriptural schism. But once they did, and I prayed and had the experience, it changed everything for me. The major thing it did, which began my conversion to Catholicism, was that it put a crack in my foundation that my denomination knew everything.
"Never at that point did I think about Catholicism, although the very first thing that happened to me that was unusual other than this gift of tongues, was that I drove past a Catholic Church and for the first time, I felt drawn to go in there and pray. Now I was raised so anti-Catholic -- we were told, don't you ever go inside a Catholic church. If you go into one, you can't get out. We laugh about it now, but we were deathly afraid of Catholicism. We thought it was from Satan and was deceiving millions of people, full of man-made rituals, because it was so different from our form of Christianity of preaching and singing and evangelizing. But I went into that Catholic Church, I spent four hours in that old, traditional, beautiful church. The pillars of marble, high altar rails, canvas paintings, stained glass windows -- it arrested me. I could not imagine what the people who went there did. I thought, with a building that looks like this, what do you do when you come here? I noticed the pulpit was not front-and-center like it always was at our churches where the emphasis is on hearing sermons and preaching. That experience marked me -- it did something to me that I've never gotten over. It began my conversion to the Catholic Church, because it caused such curiosity in me. I went home and I began to read, and every time we'd pass one of those churches, for the next ten years, I'd get my whole family out of the car and make them go inside and look at that church, and the kids loved it. They loved the holy water (they didn't know what it was for), and they loved the statues. I'd read them the little plaques beneath the saint statues which told the saint's story. I couldn't figure out at the time why God kept pulling me into those beautiful old churches to pray, when I was so anti-Catholic in my theology."
Would you say that exposure to the aesthetic appeal of traditional Catholic churches was your entry into sacramental theology?
"Well, yes, although it took fifteen years. What happened was, I went to a conference where a pastor stood up and said to us, 'The church in America is irrelevant.' (Now when he said 'church' he meant all the Protestants). He said, 'It's not having any impact on society'. I knew he was right, I knew something had been wrong for a long time. We preached our hearts out, but it wasn't changing the nation. It wasn't causing men who had no use for God to even consider God. So it really made me start to examine what we were preaching and what was our method of getting people converted -- was our method of salvation the right way? So this little preacher got up and said, 'The church is irrelevant,' and then said, 'we believe the cure for the ills of our society is for us evangelical Protestant pastors to return to ancient liturgy and sacramental theology.' I had no idea what he was talking about. I thought, 'We have to do what?'
"My friend next to me said, 'Oh, no, he's talking about C-C-C-Catholicism.' That pastor proceeded to spend the next hour and fifteen minutes telling us why he said what he said, and it so disturbed me, because I knew in my heart he was on to something true, but my head was giving me fits. It went against everything I believed. So we gave ourselves the next two years just to study and read the early Church fathers. We realized how much we had lost in the Reformation, and made a vow to try to take all our congregations and restore everything that was lost. No small task. We started to call ourselves 'ancient historical Christians', which of course is nothing other than Catholic. After trying many other alternatives (such as the Episcopal church) my wife Sherry and I decided to become Catholic. We needed a pope -- to be in line with Peter."
In a post-Vatican II climate, in which the word "renewal" can equate to a watering down of the faith, what does the word mean to you?
"Well, the first thing that comes to mind is, 'What needs to be renewed?' and 'Why does anybody need renewal?' When I was a Protestant we used the word 'revival'. We believed we needed reviving because we've gone cold and indifferent and spiritually dead, and at one time the faith was on fire and vibrant and alive. So that's what renewal and revival means to me. The Scriptures say, 'Can these dry bones live again,' and give examples of breathing on something that's become a dead formalistic mental exercise and is not alive spiritually anymore."
Do you think this kind of renewal is at the heart of what was called for by Vatican II?
"I think the Vatican Council was about this renewal. Of course I'm a new kid on the block, and have heard a lot of controversy about the second Vatican Council, and I've seen some great things that have come supposedly as a result of it, and some not so great things. But what I find out about those not so great things is that those were things that were never intended by the Council anyway. So a misapplication and a misinterpretation have happened. I will go on record saying I believe with all my heart that the Second Vatican Council is the voice of God to the Church. It is the magisterium. There's no arguing with that. How it's implemented though -- people get involved, men get involved.... Without being uncharitable, I can say some men with their own agendas came out of the council and tried to use the phrase, 'in the spirit of the second Vatican Council ... we have to change, etc, etc.... ' I think the Council was God's way of trying to bring renewal to the Church in the twenty-first century. I have to say, all the things I read about Catholicism -- the rubrics of the mass, the silence of the sacred space, the kneelers and the formality of dress -- it was all so refreshing to me. But when I actually saw the typical Catholic churches, it was very different. If I had walked into a modern, updated, liberal Catholic parish I would never have become Catholic. Because it's so much like the Protestant environment that I left. I was looking for structure, and respect for the sacred, and love for the holy, and we didn't have it. And many parishes, I'm afraid, have become just like that "in the spirit of Vatican II" of making the church a "gathering space" -- even though it is still sacred space we don't act like it is. So I think some things have been very detrimental to the faith and have even caused tens of thousands of Catholics to walk out and lose their faith. And again, that's not the Council's fault but just the statistics. Of the thirty-three percent of Catholics who still attend mass regularly, sixty-six percent no longer believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is the crisis in the church, not pedophilia. This loss of faith in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist -- that's the very doctrine that changed my whole life and caused my conversion, because all the Church's teachings flow from that doctrine."
Do you see the same need for a return to sacramental theology that you saw in the Protestant congregations?
"Absolutely. Dr. (Scott) Hahn says, 'We must evangelize the baptized first.' Evangelization has to start among our own people. And it's happening. There were about two hundred Protestant pastors that came into the Church the year I converted, and I heard two weeks ago that there are four hundred and seventy-nine Protestant pastors coming into the Church this year. So what's the Lord up to? He loves the Church. It's not going to die or fall apart. He promised that, but it may go through some real reviving and renewing and changing, and God is bringing hundreds of Protestant pastors, the leaders of Protestant Christianity, back home, to the roots of their own faith even as Christians. So it looks like the Holy Spirit is up to something."
Do you think there's a need to be especially careful when you are trying to make Catholic truths digestible to the average layperson?
"Yes, you have to be very careful. Most of us -- we converted pastors -- are not theologians, we're not experts, we learned just enough about the Church to know it was the truth. And what most of us try to share are just the things we know that changed our lives. There are many topics I will not touch. I cannot teach on a particular doctrine if I'm not educated in it. The things that I know according to Scripture, and that we can prove historically about the Church being the Church that Jesus started, I have no problem preaching up a storm on those kinds of things. But every teacher, apologist, or catechist has to be very careful. You try to make the faith as understandable as you can while avoiding any danger of heresy."
Do you feel that your call is to evangelize to the baptized first by sharing your story?
"By sharing my story, yes, but more importantly through apologetics. Why do we believe what we believe? You must be able to give an answer to anyone that asks you. Saint Peter said, 'You must be able at all times to give a reason for the hope that lies in you.' So first the baptized must be taught their own faith, and then taught how to answer criticisms of that faith from non-Catholic Christians who are very misinformed about the faith just like I was. And a kind answer turns away wrath -- you've got to be filled with love and with charity, but you have to know the faith. When it comes to those who have no faith at all, you need to ask yourself, 'Do I know how to share the love of Christ with them? Can I convince them of their need for God and salvation?' Can you love them into the Kingdom? God does the converting, we don't convert anybody. Our job is to be the best Catholics we can be. My job is not to tell you what to believe but to explain the faith. Then you must decide what you believe."
I am confused. To me the scripture you quoted is saying that WE should pray, intercede etc for all men, give thanks etc. I don't see that someone in Heaven is being spoken of here. Am I missing something?
I think that is a lovely thought, just not sure about it. I wish it to be true, but I just don't know. It is foreign to my way of thinking I guess, because I have never been taught that.
I must say that isn't the reason most of us would think that. It is because we are not taught that in our Churches. I have been surprised at the amount of animosity that exists between Protestants and Catholics. And yes, it does work both ways. I have no bad feelings about Catholics, but now realize they don't accept me. At least that is the feeling I get on this forum. Very sad actually that this happens.
>>I am confused. To me the scripture you quoted is saying that WE should pray, intercede etc for all men, give thanks etc. I don't see that someone in Heaven is being spoken of here. Am I missing something?<<
Your interpretation is correct... However, Catholic doctrine has quite a different worldview when it comes to theology... Which at best results in illogical conclusions... And at its worst is downright blasphemous...
>>I think that is a lovely thought, just not sure about it. I wish it to be true, but I just don't know. It is foreign to my way of thinking I guess, because I have never been taught that.<<
The idea of "praying to the dead", or even "praying for the dead" is foreign to the Scriptures, also... But, both are an integral part of Roman Catholic dogma...
Do you REALLY believe this? Have you ever watched John Hagee and the congregation he preaches to? Or Joel Osteen? Also, SBC churches have huge Hispanic congregations throughout the U.S.
What an embarassing generalization you made...
Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.
Daniel 9:24And I fell at his feet to worship him.
But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant,
and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus.
Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revlation 19:10
I will leave it to others who have read our exchanges to determine whether I have shown Sola Fide is NOT biblical. Your understanding of Scripture is based on the findings of men of today's culture and their own ideas, while mine is based on the Tradition passed down from 2000 years, so I suppose I have an advantage - access to the Truth given to the Apostles...
Good luck to you and God bless in your future endeavors.
Regards
I cited 1 Tim 2:1-3 to show that others can intercede for men. The problem presented was that only Jesus Christ is the Mediator. The gentlemen I was speaking with told me that because Jesus is the only Mediator between God and man, then no one else can "mediate". I pointed to the context of 1 Tim 2:5, which the immediately preceding verses show St. Paul telling Timothy that Christians ARE to intercede for men. Thus, this goes against the idea that Jesus is the only interceder for men.
When St. Paul says Jesus is the Mediator between God and man, he means that ONLY CHRIST is both God and Man. He shares both natures. Thus, He knows what men have gone through, He has suffered and has undergone trials. God has not experienced that before the Incarnation, being impassible. As the letter to the Hebrews notes, Jesus is our representative before God in the "Holy of Holies".
My comments had nothing to do with heavenly intercessors. However, if you look to the Book of Revelation, you will find the saints in heaven praying for our sake. Death will not separate us from the love of Christ, says St. Paul. As a result, the dead saints will be more alive in Christ than they are here on earth (again, St. Paul says the "dead" saints are not dead in spirit) - and the prayers of a righteous man are truly efficacious, says St. James. Thus, the Scriptures imply that it is a pious and righteous thing to ask for the prayers of other Christians - some of which may be in heaven. We note this from the earliest Christian practices through the study of archaeology. THEY understood that prayers to the "dead" saints were efficacious - and so do we, as Christianity is a revealed religion.
Regards
I think that is a lovely thought, just not sure about it. ladyinred wrote : I wish it to be true, but I just don't know. It is foreign to my way of thinking I guess, because I have never been taught that.
It is based on the Body of Christ. As St. Paul says in 1 Cor and Romans and Ephesians, we are part of the Body of Christ. Since death cannot separate us from Christ, we understand that even after our physical bodies have died, we are united - even more closely - to Jesus Christ and His Mystical Body. We are as cells - and when one suffers, the others suffer. When one is glorified, others are glorified. The Church is primarily a community in Christ - which transcends death itself. Thus we are united with those people who have already gone to receive their reward in heaven.
It is a beautiful and consoling way of looking at things for those who have recently suffered the lose of a loved one. It keeps us united with these people. And being united with Christ, their love is now so much stronger. They will certainly care about our welfare as we continue to struggle here on earth.
Regards
Truly sad. Do you feel better about yourself, politicallyincarrect, that you can make such aside comments to another Christian but you can't back them up when discussing a theological topic with Catholics?? How on earth can you say yours is a biblical theology when you follow something that is ANTI-Biblical? We aren't talking about something that might be implied or developed, such as some Catholic beliefs. We are talking about James chapter 2 or 1 Cor 13 vs. "Sola Fide"... And you have the gall to make such accusations?
If you have the gumption to continue our conversation without bailing out over false sensitivities (an ironic thing, given your screen name...), you know where to find me...
As to ladyinred, it is a shame that you have to be cast into the middle of such polemics from a fellow Christian. God bless you and your search for the truth.
Regards
It certainly is not "foreign" to Scriptures, nor is it foreign to the practice of Christians of 100 AD. Are you suggesting that the Christians of 100 AD were not aware of what the Apostles taught? That less than 80 years after Christ's death, the entire Church went into an apostasy, teaching heresy, without ONE utterance of dissent for the "true" faith, while simultaneously, dying in droves for the faith that they apostasized against???
Have you really given any thought to how ridiculous that sounds?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, you (or one of your teachers) did "make that up".
And, no, it is not "a verbatim quote from the Epistle of James".
IMO, you would be wise to heed Deuteronomy:
(1) Deut. 4:2—’Ye shall not add unto the Word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.’
As cited by jo kus in #56:
"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also[.]"
James 2:26
Note that "little red dot[.] in the scripture passage. It denotes the end of the sentence, the end of the verse, and, in this case, the end of the chapter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In fact, I was uncomfortable with jo kus' "also" -- so I looked up parallel translations:
ASV: For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead. BBE: For as the body without the spirit is dead even so faith without works is dead. DBY: For as the body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. KJV: For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. WEY: For just as a human body without a spirit is lifeless, so also faith is lifeless if it is unaccompanied by obedience. WEB: For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead. YLT: for as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also the faith apart from the works is dead.
Note that only the 1611 English translation of a [Latin] translation [from Greek] (KJV) has the added "also".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also, to avoid "cherry picking the Scriptures" (as "Bible thumpers" are wont to do), I advise reading verses in context:
James 2:
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?
15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.
16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?
17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]?
21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?
26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
Footnotes:
James 2:8 Lev. 19:18
James 2:11 Exodus 20:14; Deut. 5:18
James 2:11 Exodus 20:13; Deut. 5:17
James 2:20 Some early manuscripts dead
James 2:23 Gen. 15:6
The way I understand those passages, "Works" or "Deeds" are the evidence of true, saving faith -- not an added requirement thereunto.
If I may, I'd like to create an analogy to illustrate my viewpoint:
Consider a "blank" cartridge (one with only primer and powder) versus a"live", "fully loaded" cartridge (one with primer, powder and a bullet).
Although both make the appropriate noise (claiming to have "faith"),
only the "real" cartridge makes a hole in the target ( produces "Works", "Deeds", "Results") as evidence that it is genuine.
OTOH, a hole in the paper is not required for the fully-loaded cartridge to be a genuine, usable ("live") cartridge.
~~~~~~~~~~~
My Lord, as a result of my faith in Him, has made me "live": "complete" ("with primer, powder and shot") -- "saved".
Although it is my joy to produce works for Him, (holes in my targets)
my failure to do so cannot negate His great work of grace and salvation in me.
28 “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand” (John 10:28-29). (KJV, my emphasis added...)
<SOAPBOX MODE>
(Folks, it is difficult enough for us to commune in fellowship over difficult issues like this
-- without "making up Scripture 'on the fly'"...)
</SOAPBOX MODE>
Well and truly stated! As I always told students, "If my retaining the Salvation He has granted to me was dependent upon me being able to preserve that Salavation, then it would be a weak thing indeed, for 'me' is a proven sinner, redeemed ONLY by His Grace toward me."
Sorry the Scriptures make you uncomfortable. Quite frankly, none of your other versions change the meaning of the version that I cited, the DRC:
"For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead." ASV
"Even so", "also", "and so" - same thing. If you don't have works of love, your faith is meaningless. It is clear that James is telling us that SAYING you have faith means nothing if you do not have works of love. He even gives real world examples!
James asks:
"shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?" James 2:14
It is amply clear that faith alone cannot save by this one verse. But the whole context merely echoes James Chapter 2. A Christian without love has a dead faith, a faith that cannot save. By trying to make the claim that works comes from the "faith engine" is false, because the "faith engine" does not produce works of love. GOD does while He abides within the Christian! It is faulty theology to presume that "faith" alone saves, as James clearly sets out to prove.
James and Paul merely express the two sides of the same coin.
Faith without works is dead (James)
Works without faith is dead (Paul)
You will need both love and faith to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity. " Gal 5:6
Faith AND works BOTH come from God. Faith is not a "generator" of good works. The vine is Jesus Christ. Our source of goodness is the Holy Spirit. NOT an attribute called "faith"... IF faith "automatically" led to good works of love, then you might want to reconsider the entire reason why ALL of the letters that follow the Acts of the Apostles have moral and ethical exhortations. IF faith "naturally" led to love, there would be NO NEED of such exhortations, they would come as one moved down the "conveyor belt" of faith...
Regards
>>It certainly is not "foreign" to Scriptures, nor is it foreign to the practice of Christians of 100 AD. Are you suggesting that the Christians of 100 AD were not aware of what the Apostles taught? That less than 80 years after >>Christ's death, the entire Church went into an apostasy, teaching heresy, without ONE utterance of dissent for the "true" faith, while simultaneously, dying in droves for the faith that they apostasized against???
Have you really given any thought to how ridiculous that sounds?<<
With all due respect... Your post makes a "ridiculous" argument against the fact that nowhere in Scripture are we ever told to "pray to the dead", or to "pray for the dead"... Scriptural prayer is TO God, and FOR and BY the living...
I challenge you to respond with Scriptural opposition to what I've just said... If you think that some exists...
The Bible is clear that faith holds a first and prominent role in the salvation of every person.
The Bible is equally clear on the saving role of good works in the lives of the faithful.
The Bible makes it clear that there must be a balanced relationship between our faith and its expression in good works.
The Bible indicates that it is wrong to disturb the balance of works expressing a life of faith. Man is not saved by faith alone.
Nor is man saved by works alone.
The Bible declares that salvation is a gift of God alone and constantly reaffirms that faith has a primary role in that salvation.
Thank you, and God bless you as well.
>>I will leave it to others who have read our exchanges to determine whether I have shown Sola Fide is NOT biblical.<<
We've both made our cases... I willing to let others decide for themselves as well...
>>Your understanding of Scripture is based on the findings of men of today's culture and their own ideas,<<
You don't have a clue how I've arrived at my "understanding of Scriptures"... So let me tell you... As I've said before... I have no axe to grind... I've looked at every view point, read numerous commentators, including RCC and compared them with Scripture... That is how I've come to my conclusions...
>> while mine is based on the Tradition passed down from 2000 years, <<
That is obvious... :-)
>>so I suppose I have an advantage - <<
Advantage? I think not considering the real source of your "traditions"...
>>access to the Truth given to the Apostles...<<
All truth is found in the Bible alone... Any man made interpretations of what the Apostles believed and practiced is invalid if it is not backed up by Scripture... Error is error no matter how many times it is believed, taught, or practiced...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.