By Brian Mathews

[I]f I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

—1 Timothy 3:15

Beginnings

Baptism

One of my fondest memories from childhood involved standing in my mom and dad’s bedroom, preparing for baptism. My father, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, coached me on how to hold my nose when being immersed. Shortly thereafter, I walked into the baptismal font at Sagemont Baptist Church, ready to be baptized by my dad. Little did I know that I would be participating in divine life on that special day, a day on which God would use my father in an extraordinary way to adopt me into his covenant family.

Looking back on my childhood experience, naturally some of the details are a bit vague, but I distinctly remember that, at one point, my father knelt down to talk with me about the most important thing in life, Jesus Christ. The most loving thing a father could do for his son was to lead him to Christ. These childhood moments fill me with joy, knowing that my mom and dad were greatly concerned with my eternal well-being, wanting to share with their son the love of God that they had experienced. Being drawn to the heavenly Father by the grace of the Holy Spirit, embracing Christ as a child brought a unique hope to my life.

Eternal Life

When I was growing up, the most important thing for many Evangelical Christians was to receive Jesus Christ into one’s life, so that one could have eternal life. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (Jn 3:16). Eternal life meant that, due to the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross on behalf of sinners, a person was able to go to heaven, escaping eternal separation from God. Since eternal life was a gift from God that could not be earned, once a person made the decision to trust in Christ for eternal life, that person would go to heaven. Eternal life is not based upon the performance of good works, but instead it is the work of Christ on the Cross that saves a person once they have believed.

From the time I was a young child and into my adolescent and early adult years, this was my understanding of what it meant to be saved. Salvation was not contingent on church attendance, receiving communion, being baptized, or performing good deeds. Even where one attended church was irrelevant with respect to being saved. The most important thing was whether a person had ever made the decision to trust in Christ and have a personal relationship with him. Although most of the other things mentioned above, such as being involved in a church that taught the Christian faith as taught by the Scriptures, were important, they were secondary matters that did not determine a person’s eternal destiny, although for many Evangelical Christians, subsequent obedience is important in indicating whether someone is truly saved in the first place.

I am very thankful for being raised in a spiritual tradition with a strong emphasis on having a personal relationship with Christ. It is vital in the life of a Christian. While having a personal relationship with Christ is crucial, another pressing question for the disciple of Christ concerns how a person is to live out this relationship, a question with which I would eventually struggle.

Church Background

My mom and dad were from two denominational traditions, one Methodist and the other Southern Baptist. Even though my dad was an ordained Southern Baptist minister, by the time I was eight years old, my family had moved to New Jersey and began attending a charismatic Assembly of God church. After my mom and dad served there in ministry for a year, we headed to California and participated once again in a Baptist congregation. By the middle of my fourth-grade year, we moved back to Texas, where my parents had grown up, this time becoming members of a Methodist community. The pastor who married my parents was now the person my dad would work with in music ministry for many years to come.

During these early years, participating in many denominations was never a confusing ordeal, for once again, the most important thing was not the particular denomination to which a person belonged but trusting in Christ. Denominational differences did not become challenging until I was later confronted with the reality that the disparities concerned more than just secondary matters, but this was not even a blip on my radar at the time. For now, being involved in different kinds of churches implicitly reiterated the primary emphasis on having a personal relationship with Jesus, not a personal relationship with the Methodist or Baptist denomination.

The University

When I entered college and throughout my early adulthood, my life was filled with spiritual highs and lows. I remember struggling to discern my calling in life, but the word calling entailed the difficulty of attempting to discern a career path. Was I supposed to become a doctor or a businessman or enter into vocational ministry and teach or preach? What exactly was it that God wanted me to pursue? I did not have any clear direction on the answer to this all-important question, and the fear of missing out on God’s calling for my life nagged at me. Instead of enthusiastically engaging in my studies with clear goals, I slowly began to be confronted with doubts in addition to making some very poor decisions in my personal life.

The Reliability of the Bible

During my freshman year of college, I enrolled in an Old Testament course. Students were required to take this class due to the religious nature of the university. However, instead of encouraging me in the Christian faith, this course challenged me with matters (or difficulties) pertaining to Scripture. I remember my Old Testament professor giving the impression that the Bible contained contradictions. But if the Bible had contradictions, how could it be the Word of God? Truth does not contradict itself, and God does not make mistakes. And if the Bible is not reliable because of contradictions, how can one be confident that Christianity is actually true? I did not really know much about apologetics at the time, but I was already being confronted with apologetic issues that brought discomfort.

The Bible and Science

During my sophomore year, my biology professor attempted to debunk the opening chapters of Genesis by showing that the information provided in the text of Scripture did not match the truths gleaned from observing nature. Once again, I remember being irritated by this, but I did not have a thoughtful response. Of course, there are various ways in which the opening chapters of Genesis can be harmonized with the truths found in natural science, but I was clearly ignorant of such things. One thing was for sure, though: doubts concerning some of the truths of the Christian faith crept in, and throughout my college and early adult years, I faced significant struggles with being faithful to God.

Theological Curiosity

After graduating from college with a business degree in finance, I started working as a loan officer in the mortgage industry, which lasted only a short while. Discontented, I continued to grapple with God’s will for me as it pertained to a career. I had struggled with putting other things and people before God, and now I was ready for a change. I remember at one point thinking, “God, if only I could do something in ministry, then I would be happy.” I had an immature understanding of what it meant to be truly happy, but despite this, being blessed by God with musical abilities and having grown up in a musical family, I pursued a part-time ministry job as a music leader of a small Evangelical congregation. Over the next few years, I led the music ministry at two churches, with a keen interest in apologetic questions. I remember special relationships with two pastors, enjoying their friendship and engaging in theological discussions. They both blessed my life, and I eventually started graduate school at Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS). Even though I really was not sure what I would do with a theological degree, I knew that I wanted to know more about God and pursue various theological questions in greater depth.

Calvinism

It was around this time that I became more exposed to the theological system known as Calvinism. I will never forget one of my best friends, a friend from childhood, conversing with me concerning some of the doctrines of Reformed theology. A Calvinist and DTS student himself, he thoughtfully articulated some of these doctrines, one of them being the idea that Jesus did not really die for the sins of the world—that is, for the sins of every man. From a Reformed theological standpoint, one of the reasons for this position is a seeming universalism that would follow if Christ had indeed died for every single man. In other words, if Christ paid for the sins of all mankind and really wanted every single person to be saved, then, in light of the doctrines of grace in the Reformed tradition, everyone would ultimately make it to heaven. Not only would there be no reason for anyone to go to hell (since everyone’s sins have been accounted and paid for by the Crucifixion), but also God, as sovereign, is in control and will not be denied in what he ultimately wills.

Although my good friend did not intend this, I became very disturbed, as this seemed to call into question the very love of God, leading to the thought that Christ does not really desire that all men be saved, nor does he provide the opportunity for everyone to be saved. In this framework, God does not offer sufficient grace to every person so that every individual has at least the opportunity to be saved.

Norman Geisler

It was through this theological issue that I first became familiar with Dr. Norman Geisler, the cofounder of Southern Evangelical Seminary. My father-in-law, a strong Christian who was in seminary at DTS, introduced me to one of Dr. Geisler’s books that responded to the soteriology of Calvinism. Of course, like many theologians, Dr. Geisler attempts to refute limited atonement by citing scriptural passages that point to the universal salvific will of God, but he also uses philosophy to lend credence to the view that Jesus really did atone for the sins of the world. Not only did Dr. Geisler appeal to me theologically, but I also learned of his credentials in the field of apologetics.

While living in Dallas, I listened to a radio interview with Frank Turek, a student and colleague of Dr. Geisler. Dr. Turek winsomely and convincingly articulated strong evidence in favor of Christianity. Inspired by this newly discovered discipline, I began reading apologetic books, as I was becoming more interested not only in believing the truth as it pertained to the Christian faith but in knowing why I believed what I believed, and I wanted to be equipped to be used by God in defending these truths. Because DTS did not offer an apologetics degree, my theological studies there lasted only one semester. So after prayerful consideration as well as meeting and talking with Dr. Geisler, my family and I set our sights on Charlotte, North Carolina, so that I could attend Southern Evangelical Seminary under the tutelage of Dr. Geisler.

Southern Evangelical Seminary

Apologetics and Philosophy

At this point, Catholicism continued to be a nonissue, although God had already brought thoughtful, godly Catholics across my path while I lived in Texas. I really never gave Catholicism much thought, nor was there a need to, as my spiritual upbringing was not explicitly anti-Catholic, and I was, in a sense, content in my Evangelical circles. So, during my first couple of years of seminary, I enthusiastically learned and became better equipped to defend the Christian faith. SES provided me with access to a wide array of resources, but philosophical reasoning was particularly stressed and emphasized in being foundational to defending and understanding the Christian faith. I was introduced to the importance of metaphysics and, more specifically, the philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas in undergirding one’s theology and biblical exegesis, especially as it pertained to the nature and attributes of God.

Saint Thomas Aquinas

The school’s emphasis on and profound respect for the thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas would later be of great significance to my entering into full communion with the Catholic Church, but during these early formative years, Saint Thomas Aquinas was never presented as a Catholic philosopher or theologian. Instead, he was portrayed as more of a proto-Protestant believing doctrines such as sola scriptura that were in line with the Protestant Reformers. For example, Dr. Geisler writes, “Aquinas agreed with the later Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura, the Bible alone as the Word of God, the totally sufficient norm for our faith.”Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2002), 294. Although my SES education was in no way limited to the thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas and my professors disagreed with him at times, such as on the doctrine of transubstantiation, the school had garnered a reputation as being Thomistic, hence Dr. Geisler’s label of “Evangelical Thomist”.

Theological Struggles

Calvinism versus Moderate Calvinism

Even though my early years were marked with great progress in learning and understanding many of the truths of the faith, the seeds of doubt regarding sola scriptura were being planted as I continued to struggle with the issue of Calvinism. I spent hours upon hours studying the scriptural arguments related to these doctrines but was never completely satisfied with the “moderate Calvinist” position according to Dr. Geisler, nor was I convinced by the arguments in favor of Reformed soteriology. This was quite bothersome because how I witnessed to others was contingent on which theological position was true. For example, if Christ really did not desire that all men be saved, and instead a person’s free will was more of an afterthought as it applied to salvation, since God irresistibly provided salvific grace only to the elect who would persevere in the faith as a result, then a presentation of the gospel that included the notion that God loves every single person unconditionally and wants every person to come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved would be a distortion of the truth. Not only would this impact how one witnessed, but it would also significantly influence one’s view of God in general.

Lordship versus Free Grace

Also on the horizon during my studies at SES was the controversy between the Lordship view of salvation and the Free Grace understanding. The Lordship position stresses faith for salvation as being essentially connected to turning away from sin, surrendering one’s life to Christ, and following him as Lord. The Free Grace position emphasizes that salvation is a gift from God conditioned on simple faith in Christ, and by simple is meant a faith that is not essentially related to good works or turning from sin. In other words, a person’s obedience or lack thereof has nothing to do with his entering into heaven, and it is even possible for a believer to reject the faith and die in this state and still go to heaven, because salvation is conditioned on a single moment of believing in Christ. But according to Lordship proponents, saving faith will entail at least perseverance in faith until the end of one’s life, which should also involve obedience. If a person ended up rejecting the faith later in life and even died in this state, this was evidence that a person was never saved in the first place.

As you may recall, my spiritual background leaned more toward the Free Grace side, although there was still room for other elements, such as the possibility that a person would think he was saved when in reality he had never had a personal relationship with Christ. At SES, the professors in residence, with the exception of one, were either firmly in the Free Grace camp or leaned toward this understanding of salvation. At first, being exposed to the interpretations of Free Grace theology was freeing, as this seemingly provided a means of reconciling difficult passages that, at first glance, did not appear to teach that we are saved by grace through faith alone. For example, Matthew 16:24-27:

Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life? For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.”

Instead of the words save and life referring to salvation from hell, or life as it relates to going to heaven, through sophisticated argumentation, Free Grace interpreters explain that in this context, which is a discipleship context involving persons that already believe in Christ and are saved as opposed to a witnessing context for unbelievers, the terms in question refer to salvation in some other kind of sense. In other words, the kind of salvation in question in this passage has nothing to do with whether a person enters into heaven when they die. Arguing from contextual factors and in light of the conviction that eternal salvation is not dependent on works and is eternally secure for those that have believed in Christ, this passage is teaching about the concept of rewards in eternity, not whether a person enters into heaven. Repaying every man according to what he has done has to do with what kind of rewards one has in the future Kingdom of God, which will vary based on the works of each Christian. To say that entering into heaven is based on following Christ, denying oneself, and suffering for Christ is to imply that salvation is conditioned on works, which in their minds is a giant step toward agreeing with Catholics.

Free Grace versus Free Grace

However, what began as a seemingly hopeful adventure in understanding truly what the Bible teaches based on sound hermeneutical principles, which involved taking into account grammatical and contextual factors in addition to having a decent understanding of the biblical languages, eventually became an exercise in futility. Even though Free Grace theologians were united in combating the Lordship position, I would soon gain exposure to the controversies within their own circles, controversies that have come to be associated with the phrase “crossless gospel”. This conflict concerned not merely secondary issues but essential foundational matters of the Christian faith—namely, the very gospel itself.

What Is the Gospel?

To summarize the conflict, Free Grace biblical exegetes do not agree on the contents of saving faith. In other words, although they might all express that one is saved by believing in Jesus, exactly what it means to believe in Jesus for eternal life is not agreed upon and is hotly contested. For example, does one have to believe that Jesus is God or simply that Jesus is a person who will save him from hell if he believes in Jesus? Does one have to believe in the death and Resurrection of Christ in order to go to heaven, or can one be saved while being completely ignorant of the sacrifice of Christ on his behalf? To be saved, does a person have to believe that the gift of eternal life is something that can never be lost, or can someone disagree with eternal security and still go to heaven? Does a person have to believe that Jesus was human and divine, or can a person be saved without any understanding of the humanity of Christ?

Even though each Free Grace theologian used the same methodological principles in attempting to interpret Scripture correctly, at least five competing positions resulted, indicating at least five positions on the nature of the gospel itself, the bedrock of the Christian faith. I did not realize it at the time, but sola scriptura was becoming more and more practically unworkable. I graduated with my first master’s degree in apologetics from SES, but I honestly felt somewhat bewildered, as I did not really know what someone truly needed to believe to be saved and receive eternal life. And if I did not know the contents of saving faith, how could I witness and lead others to Christ? It is one thing to teach basic apologetic issues, such as defending the existence of God or giving arguments for the Resurrection of Christ, but how could I actually engage in vocational ministry as a job if I did not understand what it meant to believe in Jesus for eternal life? After spending grand amounts of time in attempting to resolve these difficulties, I could not reach a resolution and eventually downplayed the controversy.

The Catholic Question

Rather than seriously pursue a vocational ministry position after my first degree, I decided to continue my education at SES to become better acquainted with the original biblical languages. Since many theologians appealed to the original languages in order to justify their particular theological viewpoints and since being familiar with Greek and Hebrew was considered an important factor in coming to the correct interpretations of Scripture, my desire was to become better equipped in this area. In my second round of studies, the Catholic question would soon come to light.

During my theological studies, I taught private piano lessons to a number of students, sometimes in their homes, and in the course of instructing these children, I developed a special friendship with a Catholic family, especially with the father. This father would meet with Jehovah’s Witnesses in his home, enjoying theological conversations while giving reasons for the truths of the Catholic faith. Inevitably and quite naturally, he and I engaged in theological discussion. In explaining one of his meetings with Jehovah’s Witnesses, he stressed the importance of the Church in giving Christians the Bible. In other words, Christians would not have a Bible to study or read if it were not for the Church handing down this authoritative book. Other issues we discussed included the Protestant doctrine of sola fide and the conversion story of Scott Hahn. From my perspective, the thought of a Protestant converting to Catholicism based in large part on his studies of the Scriptures sounded completely foreign. After all, Catholics believed all sorts of things not found in the Scriptures, or so I thought. When my friend learned of my affinity for the Angelic Doctor, Saint Thomas Aquinas, he eventually said something that I will never forget: “I bet within five years you will become Catholic.” I just sort of laughed and shrugged off the suggestion. Little did I know that his prediction would eventually become a reality.

Toward the end of my education at SES, I enrolled in a course solely dedicated to studying the letter to the Romans. After spending multiple years in seminary, I had already completed numerous apologetics, theology, philosophy, and Bible classes in addition to becoming more acquainted with the biblical languages. The stage was set to study one of the most important books of the Bible, a foundational book for understanding the doctrine of salvation. One of my assignments was to write a paper that outlined Saint Paul’s main arguments throughout his epistle. Instead of making significant progress, I found that the problem of having to decide between competing interpretations of Scripture reared its ugly head again, with one major exception.

Sola Fide Questioned

One day, while working from my computer at home, I came across a debate between a Catholic and a Protestant over the issue of salvation or justification. Instead of listening to the debate casually, I decided to take notes. What would ensue during the debate was unpleasantly shocking, as this Catholic apologist made strong biblical arguments in favor of the Catholic position on justification, the very important soteriological doctrine having to do with how a person becomes saved and enters into a right relationship with God. I had never heard the Catholic position persuasively articulated in such detail from the Scriptures, and even if this apologist did not necessarily win the debate, it was another interpretation of Romans, and the Scriptures in general, with which I was forced seriously to contend. Now, in addition to the Free Grace and Lordship salvation interpretations as well as N. T. Wright’s New Perspectives on Paul, which is another contrasting view of the doctrine of justification from one of the most respected New Testament scholars in the world, a thoughtful Catholic interpretation on the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls, according to Martin Luther, had entered the fray. It is not as if I had never been exposed to some of the Catholic arguments prior to this moment in my education at SES. The difference is that I was hearing more in-depth, plausible arguments and responses from a Catholic scholar himself.

Distress came upon me once again, as I was feeling the heavy burden of having to interpret the Bible correctly on this all-important question. Foundational questions and doubts flooded my mind, and for the first time, the Catholic question was becoming a serious concern. What if the epistle of Saint James really does teach that justification is not merely a one-time forensic event but is instead a process by which a Christian grows in justification by works as a result of God’s grace already at work in a person’s life? What if Saint Paul’s teaching in Romans that justification is by faith apart from works of the law did not exclude another sense in which works are a part of justification? What if Saint Paul was not speaking hypothetically in Romans when he wrote, “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rom 2:13)? Or earlier in the chapter, when he expressed the coming judgment of God, “For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury” (Rom 2:6-8)? What if the concepts I had learned regarding eternal life, rewards, and salvation were mistaken? These were just some of the questions that were grabbing my attention.

Justification before Men?

One of the most salient points in the debate concerned the Protestant response to the kind of justification that Saint James espoused in his famous epistle. “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (Jas 2:24). Some Evangelicals attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction between Saint Paul and Saint James over the issue of justification by reasoning that James puts forth a different kind of justification altogether, one that is before men as opposed to before God. Theologians might maintain that, in his letter to the Romans, Paul argued for justification by grace through faith alone before God, but James communicated a different kind of justification by works before men. Since one cannot be justified by works before God, due to God’s standard of perfection, of which we all hopelessly fall short, James cannot be implying that works before God can justify a person. This is how some of the Protestant biblical scholars attempt to reconcile Saint Paul and Saint James.

A Catholic response to this claim involves going back to the Old Testament to help inform one’s interpretation of these seemingly contradictory books. Since Saint James refers to Abraham’s offering his son Isaac on the altar as support for his instruction on justification, the account in Genesis 22 is paramount to understanding his statements. But a major difficulty for the Protestant explanation is that when Abraham offered up Isaac, no other persons were present to witness such obedience. If Abraham was showing his faith before men by his works, why are no men present to see his good deeds? Isaac does not seem to be a good candidate to fulfill this criterion because he was the one to be sacrificed. There is also good evidence to suggest that Isaac was actually an adult who willingly allowed himself to be sacrificed by Abraham, which makes sense in light of Isaac’s being a type of Christ, who willingly allowed himself to be sacrificed on behalf of the world in submission to the will of the Father. So it looks as though both Abraham and Isaac were engaging in incredibly righteous actions with no one else present to witness such actions, which would indicate that the justification taking place in Genesis 22 is a justification before God and not men.

Genesis 22 provides further support for the Catholic position, as it is God who responds to Abraham’s righteous actions, not men:

But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, “Abraham, Abraham!”

   And he said, “Here am I.” He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only-begotten son, from me.” . . . And the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, “By myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only-begotten son, I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.” (Gen 22:11-12, 15-18)

Saint Paul and Saint James

So then how do Catholics reconcile Saint Paul and Saint James with regard to the important doctrine of justification? Although both authors of Sacred Scripture describe a justification before God, they show the different senses in which a person can be justified. Saint Paul teaches that a person is initially justified by a living faith apart from works. In other words, persons cannot merit this initial justification, which entails a person’s coming into friendship with God and being adopted into his family. Prior to being adopted into God’s family, persons are separated from God, lacking participation in the divine nature. Initial justification takes place through baptism, by which a person receives the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and love (Rom 5:5; 6:3-4; Tit 3:3-7; 1 Cor 6:11). So the faith that saves is a living faith, a faith informed by love, and this is all made possible and actual by the sacrificial atonement of Christ on behalf of sinners. A person cannot earn this standing before God. It is a gift.

Saint James, on the other hand, does not describe how an unbeliever becomes accepted into God’s family; Abraham believed in God long before Genesis 22 (cf. Gen 12, 15). On the contrary, Saint James describes how a believer, who has already received supernatural life, grows in his participation in the divine life. Because of the sacrifice of Christ and the grace of God already at work in the person’s life, he can continue to cooperate with God’s grace by doing good works in correspondence with the living faith he exercises, and, in effect, his works become meritorious so that eternal life is simultaneously a reward and a grace. When confronted with the difficulty of the notion that eternal life is a gift of God, so that no one can boast, yet also, in a sense, a reward for one’s works, Saint Augustine wrote the following:

This question, then, seems to me to be by no means capable of solution, unless we understand that even those good works of ours, which are recompensed with eternal life, belong to the grace of God, because of what is said by the Lord Jesus: “Without me you can do nothing” (Jn 15:5). And the apostle himself, after saying, “By grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph 2:8-9), saw, of course, the possibility that men would think from this statement that good works are not necessary to those who believe, but that faith alone suffices for them; and again, the possibility of men’s boasting of their good works, as if they were of themselves capable of performing them. To meet, therefore, these opinions on both sides, he immediately added, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph 2:10). . . . Now, hear and understand. “Not of works” is spoken of the works which you suppose have their origin in yourself alone; but you have to think of works for which God has molded (that is, has formed and created) you. . . . We are framed, therefore, that is, formed and created, in the good works that we have not ourselves prepared, but God has before ordained that we should walk in them. It follows, then, dearly beloved, beyond all doubt, that as your good life is nothing else than God’s grace, so also the eternal life which is the recompense of a good life is the grace of God; moreover it is given gratuitously, even as that is given gratuitously to which it is given. But that to which it is given is solely and simply grace; this therefore is also that which is given to it, because it is its reward—grace is for grace, as if remuneration for righteousness; in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God shall reward every man according to his works.Saint Augustine, On Grace and Free Will 20.

So even the works that a believer performs by the grace of God are gifts from God, not originating from ourselves but having God as their source, yet they are rewarded with eternal life as believers freely cooperate with that grace. As Saint Augustine insists in the next passage, free will is not taken away. The reason a person’s works can have such value is because they are connected to the sacrifice of Christ, being accomplished through the supernatural grace and virtue of love that is gratuitously infused into the believer in baptism. As Saint Paul says in Galatians 5:6, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love” (emphasis added). The armor of sola fide experienced a compelling crack.

Doubting Sola Scriptura

Now that a thoughtful, persuasive case for the Catholic position on salvation broke into the theological arena, what was I to do with all the conflicting interpretations of the Scriptures on this essential doctrine? Seemingly godly, brilliant, educated scholars and theologians who were all attempting to be faithful to the biblical text were arriving at incompatible theological conclusions. I imagine that many of them also were praying for the Holy Spirit to lead and guide them, yet somehow, even though they all invoked the same Holy Spirit, mutually exclusive conclusions still resulted. In addition, these Protestant scholars were using the same principles of interpretation to arrive at their decisions. Avoiding taking a passage out of context and violating the grammatical structures of language, paying attention to the historical factors, and interacting with the original biblical languages were all stressed by the same biblical interpreters, yet on foundational and essential doctrines, such as what it means to believe in Jesus for eternal life, conflicting outcomes still resulted. And concurrently, what was I to make of Catholicism’s persuasive case from Scripture concerning the nature of salvation? Soon I would providentially be introduced to a way out of the seemingly insurmountable dilemma.

An SES Catholic?

In discussing theological issues with close friends from SES, I discovered that an SES alum, who also had a background in Free Grace theology (and is a contributor to this book), had joined the Catholic Church. Although I was not acquainted with him personally, I learned of his contributions to the website Called to Communion, which is dedicated to effecting reconciliation and reunion between Protestants and Catholics. This website is filled with articles that charitably and thoroughly articulate the Catholic faith, but uniquely, the contributors did not grow up Catholic. Instead, they arrived in the Catholic Church only after being spiritually formed within the Reformed Protestant tradition. My curiosity was piqued as I began reading some of the articles.

Solo versus Sola Scriptura

One of the first articles I saw caught my attention: “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority”. Keith Mathison, a respected Reformed Protestant scholar, wrote a book criticizing solo scriptura, a term used to indicate that the only authority for the Christian is Scripture. This is contrasted with sola scriptura, which is the notion that Scripture is the only infallible authority, but there is also the true authority of the Church and the regula fidei (the rule of faith), although these authorities are still subordinate to the Scriptures. Mathison criticizes solo scriptura as something that causes hermeneutical chaos and anarchy. One notices the myriad of conflicting, competing interpretations within Protestantism, harming the unity and witness of the Church for which Christ prayed in John 17. Instead of hearing the Church preach the gospel of Christ, the world is “hearing an endless cacophony of conflicting and contradictory assertions by those who claim to be the Church of Christ”.Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, Ida.: Canon Press, 2001), 274–75, cited in Bryan Cross, “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority”, Called to Communion, November 4, 2009, http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/ii/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/. So how does an Evangelical Christian normally deal with such challenges, according to Mathison?

The usual response involves the examination of each competing position according to the Scriptures. In other words, one attempts to decipher which position is more faithful to the Bible, but, in embarking on such an endeavor, inevitably what transpires is that each Christian decides for himself, according to his own interpretation of the text, which interpretation is correct. Because Scripture does not interpret itself but needs to be read and interpreted by someone, Scripture ultimately ceases to function as the final interpretive authority in deciding theological matters. Instead, a person’s individual reason and judgment becomes the final authority, resulting in a kind of subjectivism and theological chaos. Mathison voices his concerns:

Ultimately the interpretation of Scripture becomes individualistic with no possibility for the resolution of differences. This occurs because adherents of solo scriptura rip the Scripture out of its ecclesiastical and traditional hermeneutical context, leaving it in a relativistic vacuum. The problem is that there are differing interpretations of Scripture, and Christians are told that these can be resolved by a simple appeal to Scripture. . . . The problem that adherents of solo scrip-tura haven’t noticed is that any appeal to Scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of Scripture. The only question is: whose interpretation? When we are faced with conflicting interpretations of Scripture, we cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve our difference of opinion as if it were a Ouija board. In order for Scripture to serve as an authority at all, it must be read, exegeted, and interpreted by somebody.Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, 246, cited in Cross, “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority”; emphasis in the original.

According to Mathison, many Evangelical Christians are no longer interpreting Scripture within its ecclesiastical and traditional hermeneutical context. They are no longer allowing the Church or the regula fidei to be their interpretive guide, which severely limits Scripture’s ability to function as an actual authority. As notable theologians are now denying parts of historical Christianity, such as parts of the Nicene Creed, based on their own interpretations of Scripture, it is evident that solo scriptura as a methodology naturally leads to theological error, divisions, and confusion. Each individual interprets Scripture as it seems right in his eyes, and the result is thousands of denominations teaching all sorts of conflicting ideas about Christianity.

Mathison also points out that solo Scriptura runs counter to early and medieval Christian practice, given that councils were convened by true bishops to solve theological disputes. Persons did not go home, read their Bibles, and then come to their own conclusions regarding Christian doctrine. And to make matters worse, denying the authority of the Church undercuts one’s reliance on Scripture as an authority because it is the Church that gave Christians the Bible. Without the Church, one could not have any certainty regarding which books are to be included in the Bible.

Solo Scriptura Abandoned

Mathison’s critiques of solo scriptura resonated deeply with my experience. The theological confusion in my life resulting from my attempts to understand Christianity according to my interpretations of the Scriptures considerably hampered my progress in the Christian life. The lack of clarity due to endless theological disputes with no practical solution stifled my ability to witness, teach, and live out the Christian faith. Foundationally speaking, I did not really have a confident or authoritative answer to the question “What exactly is the Christian faith?” Is the Christian gospel what is taught by proponents of Free Grace theology, and, if so, which brand of Free Grace orthodoxy? Is Christianity what is taught by advocates of Lordship salvation, or are they preaching a false gospel, as some would claim? The conflicting interpretations concerned not just secondary matters but the very essence of Christianity.

For the first time in my spiritual life, the divisions within Protestantism, in which there are thousands of denominations filled with persons attempting to be faithful to the Scriptures, struck me as antithetical to Christianity itself. At SES, I spent considerable time researching and studying various theological positions or topics in preparation for future ministry, but I do not recall much of an emphasis on denominations being a problem in and of themselves. Maybe it was taken for granted that this is just an unfortunate reality with which Christians are faced, with no hope of resolution until Christ returns. I distinctly remember my biblical-language professor stressing that Scripture does not interpret itself and that it must be interpreted by persons using sound hermeneutical principles, yet the resulting problem of multiple individual authorities did not enter the discussion, at least as far as I can remember. Regardless of my recollection, I felt illuminated in understanding that Christianity was never intended to be a giant theological puzzle for each Christian to solve by way of individual scholarship, yet with practically no hope of putting the foundational theological pieces in place.

Sola Scriptura Reduces to Solo Scriptura

Even though the problems uttered by Mathison in regard to solo scriptura were enlightening, did his solutions provide a viable alternative to the seemingly insurmountable problems? One of the chief purposes of the article on Called to Communion was to demonstrate that there is no principled difference between solo scriptura and sola scriptura, and if there is no principled difference between the two, then ultimately Mathison’s criticisms of solo scriptura would also apply to his own position—namely, that of sola scriptura. So it is argued that the very thing that Mathison and other Reformed Christians attempt to avoid—the problem of final interpretive authority being located within each person—is the very predicament in which their own position ends. How is it the case that sola scriptura in reality reduces to solo scriptura?

To mitigate the problem of private interpretation within Protestantism, Mathison’s solution is to rely on the church as a higher interpretive authority to which each person should submit, and Catholics in principle agree with this. But the difference lies in the way in which Mathison locates and defines the church. Reformed Christians define church by wherever the true gospel is found, but how does a Reformed Christian know of the true nature of the gospel to begin with? For Reformed theologians, the gospel is discovered by interpreting Scripture, but leaning on one’s own interpretation of Scripture is the very thing that is problematic of the solo scriptura paradigm, is it not? If one is told to submit to the church as an external, higher authority meant to inform and guide his interpretations of Scripture, yet the determination and definition of that church is based on his own interpretation of Scripture, then the final interpretative authority still resides within the individual. This is illustrated whenever persons switch churches, denominations, or confessional traditions based on their personal interpretive decisions in regard to Scripture.

The Catholic Resolution: Apostolic Succession

So how does the Catholic position substantially differ from Mathison’s and from that of Reformed Christians in general, offering a way out of the conundrum of final interpretive authority residing in the individual? Although Catholicism teaches that individuals are to submit to the Church as a higher authority when it comes to interpreting Scripture and understanding the Christian faith, Church is not defined according to one’s interpretation of Scripture. Instead, the Church is defined by apostolic succession, which involves an unbroken chain of bishops extending from the present all the way back to the original apostles, who were ordained by Christ himself. In other words, Christ gave the apostles authority to teach in his name, and the apostles passed on to others, by the laying on of hands, this divine authority to teach in his name; in effect, they appointed bishops as successors, who in turn appointed successors, and this process extends to the present day. If a person does not have apostolic succession, he is not divinely authorized to teach, preach, and govern Christ’s Church. So one locates the Church through apostolic succession, and it is through the successors of the apostles, the Magisterium, that a person understands the true nature of the gospel, which means that the final interpretive authority indeed rests with the Church, not with the individual believer.

I must admit, while the article profoundly resonated with me on a personal, intellectual, philosophical, and theological level, such a solution was also incredibly foreign to my thinking. Up to this point, confessions, creeds, and even Church history were afterthoughts, being secondary to my efforts to interpret the Scripture rightly. Even though I was mired by the theological confusion of competing biblical interpretations, it was still somewhat comfortable serving in a Southern Baptist church, the denomination in which my beautiful, loving grandmother taught Sunday school for years. All I had ever known and experienced was Evangelical Christianity, which, even though it did not contain the fullness of the faith, contained many beautiful, spiritual, godly beliefs, practices, and persons, most notably my family and its deep emphasis on Scripture. To enter into full communion with the Catholic Church in order to provide an intellectual solution to the problem of sola scriptura, although extremely important, would not be enough. It would take much more. Ultimately, it would have to be a work of grace from the Holy Spirit.

Ongoing Conversion

So I continued seeking by reading and studying for extensive amounts of time. I prayed to God, asking him to lead me to the truth. Regardless of what that would mean for me, that is where I wanted to be. Eventually, I had to inform the pastor of the church we were attending of my need to take a break from serving. I could no longer in good conscience lead a small-group Bible study or teach apologetics at our local church with such doubts and concerns. I was in my last year of seminary, usually a time for embarking on job searches or filling out applications for doctoral work, but instead, I was seriously contemplating a profound paradigm shift in the direction of the Catholic Church—a change that would also impact my wife and our three kids.

In my studies, I began discovering the importance of apostolic succession in Church history. The succession lists of bishops, the grave importance of being submissive to the bishop, the manner in which the Church would resolve theological disputes (councils), the way in which the early Christian apologists would respond to heretics and schismatics by pointing to apostolic succession, and the significance of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome captured my thoughts. God did not establish his Church only for her to fall into apostasy a short time later. Instead, the successors of the apostles were given a special charism of infallibility, meaning that, ultimately, the Church could not be lead astray and teach error concerning faith and morals. Not only did history point to the Bishop of Rome as having a unique authority over the entire Church, but the biblical evidence for the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:16-19 concerning Saint Peter in correspondence with the Old Testament backdrop of Isaiah 22 provided a firm foundation for the Church’s claims regarding the hierarchical structure of the Church.In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This does not imply an innovative New Testament teaching. Rather, the relevant notion of “the key” is mentioned in Isaiah 22. There, Eliakim is placed in charge of the house of Judah, a unique position of authority that has only the king as a person with higher authority. The key also denotes succession as the key was passed from one servant to another. In the New Covenant, Peter receives a name change, indicating a special purpose for him in God’s plan of salvation history, and is given the keys to a new kingdom, implying that Peter was given a unique authority to act as a kind of prime minister in accordance with the Davidic King, Jesus himself.

Canon Question

In addition to seeing Church history’s witness to apostolic succession, I realized that sola scriptura could not account for another key ingredient of the Christian faith: the biblical canon. The list of books that were to be included in the Bible is not in the Bible itself, and if the Bible is the only infallible authority for matters pertaining to the faith, then the list of books that make up the Bible is itself fallible and could be in error. Is the Bible supposed to be composed of seventy-three books or only sixty-six? Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants do not have the same list. So how does one adjudicate between the competing canons? When looking into Church history, one notices that there are differing lists. And, interestingly enough, the early Christians used the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which included all the books that are part of the Catholic Bible. Regardless, the canon problem posed another difficulty for sola scriptura; yet, once again, Catholicism had an authoritative answer to the difficulty.

Sola Scriptura Not Scriptural

One of the more notable critiques of sola scriptura is that Scripture itself does not teach it, implying that the doctrine is self-refuting. Not a single verse of the Bible (Protestant or Catholic) says or teaches that Scripture is the only infallible authority for the Christian faith. Instead, in verses such as 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Saint Paul speaks of another kind of tradition that is put on the same comparative level as written tradition: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (cf. 1 Cor 11:2). The doctrine that Luther used to justify breaking off from the Catholic Church had crumbled before my very eyes.

Saint Thomas Aquinas: A Proto-Protestant?

In light of my education at Southern Evangelical Seminary, with its fitting emphasis on the philosophical thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas, my journey toward the Catholic Church inevitably involved interacting with the Angelic Doctor. It became apparent that his thoughts were very hard to reconcile with historical Protestantism on matters pertaining to soteriology and ecclesiology. In addition to his emphasis on the sacramental life as instrumental to growing in righteousness, his view of authority caught my attention. Just prior to the his death, Saint Thomas expressed: “But if I have written anything erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.”Catholic Encyclopedia, “Saint Thomas Aquinas”, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm.

If the Holy Roman Church were a fallible institution, capable of error in matters pertaining to faith and morals and of leading others astray, why would Saint Thomas submit his writings to that Church? To give a modern-day analogy, would it make sense for a Protestant theologian to submit his theological writings to the Southern Baptist Convention for correction? Aquinas held to the Catholic Church as an infallible authority, submitting his writing to that Church. To illustrate the point further, he states:

Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith.Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II-II, 5, 3.

For Saint Thomas, the habit of faith involves adhering to the teaching of the Church precisely because she possesses an infallible and divine authority, being protected from error in regard to the articles of the faith. The final interpretive authority does not rest with a person’s private judgment, which is fallible. Instead, the Church is the divinely authorized instrument of God to interpret the Scriptures and teach the faith. Since the Church is the authority that Christ established, to trust in that authority is to trust in the authority of Christ. To submit to that authority is essentially to submit to Christ. Multiple quotations could be cited, but one more will suffice to show that Saint Thomas Aquinas held to the Catholic understanding of authority as opposed to sola scriptura.

The universal Church cannot err, since she is governed by the Holy Ghost, who is the Spirit of truth: for such was our Lord’s promise to his disciples (Jn 16:13): “When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth.” Now the symbol is published by the authority of the universal Church. Therefore it contains nothing defective.Ibid., II-II, 1, 9, sed contra.

Saint Thomas Aquinas submitted to the Catholic Church, believing that Christ passed his authority on to his apostles, who then passed that teaching authority on to their successors, so that when the Church exercises this teaching authority, she is governed by the Holy Spirit and cannot err. Although Saint Thomas is not himself considered infallible, he is known as one of the brightest Christian thinkers in history, not to mention that he is a saint because of the holiness that he exhibited during his life. SES rightfully taught me to respect such a profound Christian theologian. In light of his unparalleled theological acumen and godly example, it is not surprising that Saint Thomas Aquinas influenced my move in the direction of the Catholic Church.

The Eucharist

Obviously Symbolic?

By this time, the two pillars of the Protestant Reformation, sola fide and sola scriptura, had undergone irreversible, significant damage, but the discovery that would burst wide open the doors into the Catholic Church was something completely unforeseen and remarkably missed in all of my theological inquiries. In fact, Christ drew me to him in a manner that I would have never thought possible: through the Eucharist.

My own spiritual heritage regarded communion as only symbolic. The Lord’s Supper was a time to remember what Christ had gained for us on the Cross. He had achieved salvation by paying the penalty for our sins, and communion was a time to give thanks. When I was growing up, communion was celebrated once a month, at the most, in my Evangelical congregations. It was never considered the focal point of any service.

While the Lord’s Supper was a solemn, special occasion, it never garnered any special attention in my theological studies. The merely symbolic nature of communion seemed so obvious as not to cause any hesitations about it in my mind. Clearly, Jesus did not mean that the bread was literally his body. Such an idea seemed foolish, for at the Last Supper, his own body was behind the table, holding the piece of bread. How could he be pointing to his own body in his own hand when his body was the thing that was holding the bread? Was his body holding his own body?

What If?

Admittedly, such an idea does seem nonsensical, except for one all-important caveat. What if the person saying such a seemingly nonsensical thing actually predicted and accomplished his own Resurrection from the dead, something that seemed, and still seems, absurd to many people? What if this person actually claimed to be God himself, a remark considered preposterous and blasphemous to many during the time of Christ? And what if this person claiming to be holding his own body in his own hands is really God himself?

Regarding such a possibility, Saint Augustine writes, “For Christ was carried in his own hands, when, referring to his own Body, he said, ‘This is my Body.’ For he carried that Body in his hands.”Saint Augustine, Explanations of the Psalms 33, 1, 10. In taking the claims found in Church history more seriously, I discovered one of the most important teachings in Christianity. Bishops, apologists, theologians, and Church Father after Church Father stressed the reality of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. From the earliest times, Christ’s literal Body and Blood took center stage, indicating that it was the focal point of Christianity. Just mentioning the literal presence doesn’t do justice to its significance, as it is not only the case that Communion is not merely symbolic, but the very sacrifice of Calvary becomes present when the bread is transformed into the Body of Christ, and, by extension, what the priest holds in his hands is the whole Christ—Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Jesus is not sacrificed over and over again, as if he dies every time a Catholic Mass occurs, but the Mass makes present the one sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. When a Catholic receives the Eucharist, it is the glorified Christ that he receives, resulting in a more powerful participation in the divine life, the very life of God. He grows in righteousness, meaning that the merits of Christ are further appropriated to him.

Historical Witness

Although the scriptural arguments in favor of the Catholic interpretations of passages such as John 6, 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, the Gospel accounts of the Lord’s Supper, and many others convey solid support for the real presence, the historical reasons for accepting this beautiful teaching of the Church had a significant effect on my transition toward the Church. A few quotations are worth citing:

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1.

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.Saint Justin Martyr, First Apology 66.

The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ.Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 19, 7.

You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, consecrated by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what the chalice holds, consecrated by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. Through those accidents the Lord wished to entrust to us His Body and the Blood which he poured out for the remission of sins.Saint Augustine, Sermons 227.

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. “This is my body”, he says. This word transforms the things offered.Saint John Chrysostom, Against the Judaizers 1, 6.

You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wondrous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the Body and the cup the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes his body.Saint Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized.

Due to space constraints, I am not able to mention in any detail other notable factors that influenced my embrace of the Catholic Church, such as the beauty of the liturgy; the sacramental life; the Communion of the Saints; the tradition of prayer; the rich intellectual tradition; the Catechism; the Church’s being the largest charitable organization on earth; the Church’s leading the way in defending vital moral and social issues; the list of impressive converts and reverts—persons such as Blessed John Henry Newman, G. K. Chesterton, Dr. Peter Kreeft, Dr. Scott Hahn, Dr. Francis Beckwith, and Dr. Bryan Cross—the courage of prior SES converts, such as Joshua Betancourt, Andrew Preslar, Jeremiah Cowart, and Dr. Jason Reed; the Catholics who have exhibited impressive godliness and generosity, which have combated unflattering Catholic stereotypes; the Catholic priests who met with me privately—Father DeClue, Father Matthew Kauth, Father Timothy Reid, Father David Runnion; Pope Benedict XVI and Saint John Paul II; being blessed with another son and a stronger family because of the Church’s unpopular teaching on contraception; and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Although even more could be listed, it must especially be reiterated that in becoming Catholic, as so many have expressed before, I have not left my Evangelical Christian faith behind. Rather, I have found its fullness in the Catholic Church. The many beautiful, good, and true gifts I have received and been taught through the witness of family, friends, Evangelical church families, and the SES family will not be cast aside. Instead, they will only be further deepened and solidified in living out the Catholic faith.

The Mass

In the fall of 2010, my family and I attended our first Mass in a small parish in Lancaster, South Carolina. Although many might look at this church from the outside and consider it an old, run-down building whose days were numbered, we caught a glimpse of the inside. Although we did not know any of the liturgical responses, we heard the Sacred Scriptures read aloud. The music might not have sounded particularly delightful or “relevant,” but a calm reverence marked this house of worship. After the priest finished his homily, what would transpire would be none other than heavenly and supernatural. Persons quietly knelt down, respectfully waiting as the priest continued with the liturgy. Eventually, the priest leaned on the altar and uttered the words “Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my body, which will be given up for you.” With an intense focus, the priest lifted up what appeared to be common bread, but, in reality, Christ was present before our very eyes. The reverence and awe that so characterized this beautiful, small parish was none other than a response to the miraculous presence of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

In December of 2012, my family and I were able to partake of the divine nature, being nourished by Christ’s miraculous presence in the Holy Eucharist; we entered into full communion with the Catholic Church, our home.

For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, . . .—not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his Resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.Saint Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 4, 5, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, eds. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, Philip Schaff, and Henry Wace (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishing, 1996), 130.