The Simple Gospel

As a new Catholic, I am accused by many of my Protestant family and friends of my Catholic church making religion too complex--with all its rites, doctrines, etc. I have heard a hundred times by Protestants personally and from the pulpit: "The gospel is simple" and the phrase "the simple gospel."


So, I did a word search on simple and here are the results (RSV):


_________________________________________


Job 5:2, "Surely vexation kills the fool, and jealousy slays the simple.


In the Psalms:
19:7--The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple;  116:6--The LORD preserves the simple; when I was brought low, he saved me. 119: 130--The unfolding of thy words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.


In the Proverbs:
1:4--that prudence may be given to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth-- 1:22--"How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?" 1:32--For the simple are killed by their turning away, and the complacence of fools destroys them; 7:7--and I have seen among the simple, I have perceived among the youths, a young man without sense; 8:5-- O simple ones, learn prudence; O foolish men, pay attention; 9: 4--"Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!" To him who is without sense she says; 14:15--The simple believes everything, but the prudent looks where he is going; 14:18--The simple acquire folly, but the prudent are crowned with knowledge; 19:25--Strike a scoffer, and the simple will learn prudence; reprove a man of understanding, and he will gain knowledge; 21:11--When a scoffer is punished, the simple becomes wise; when a wise man is instructed, he gains knowledge: 22: 3--A prudent man sees danger and hides himself; but the simple go on, and suffer for it. 

• Romans 16:18 --For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.

  _______________________________________________
  
  
  The Bible is not flattering about anything or anyone "simple." They are warned to leave behind their simpleness and learn wisdom.
  
  
  We do know that the Bible talks to us about Christians being like little ones and sheep, but obviously they are not to be simple-minded. Paul in I Corinthians warns the people to leave behind the milk and get on to learning the meat. 
  
  
  Peter talks about the hard writings of Paul.
  
  
  God gives us teachers especially graced with knowledge in order to convey the meaning of the gospel and scripture. 
  
  
  Sounds to me as if "simple" would not be an accurate characterization of the gospel nor of God himself.
  
  
  Ps. 92:5, "How great are thy works, O LORD! Thy thoughts are very deep!"
  
  
  Isaiah 55: 8-9, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and mythoughts than your thoughts."
  
  
  When you study the string theory of physics and molecular biology, watch a child being born, categorize bugs, study psychology  and history it is hardly simple, in fact, the more you know the more complex things become. God is not simple, neither is His gospel. 
  
  
  Jesus revealed a mystery known from the beginning, a mystery so deep and so complex that His disciples could not begin to understand it, even after spending three years with Christ. It is so unfathomable that the truth of the gospel cannot be revealed but by the Father through the Holy Spirit. 
  
  
  To call Christ's sacrifice simple, is a desire to make it easy--to make is casual--to make it common. The gospel's complexity is resplendent and magnificent. It is so full of fearsome, breathtaking and staggering beauty that all who see its glory fall on their knees and exclaim, "holy, holy, holy Lord God almighty!"
  
  

Vatican Report

Vatican Report

Differences in Catholic/Protestant Salvation

I am always trying to perfect a way to bridge the understanding between Catholics and Protestants. Because I grew up in a more American Fundamentalist worldview, I tend towards using their language than other "higher" forms of Protestantism, so if you are an Anglican, Lutheran or other more liturgical Protestant, this model may in no way be helpful. In fact, I am not even sure myself if this model works, so I would appreciate ANY feedback about its weaknesses from both Catholic and Protestant.

Also, because I use the language of Protestants, it may confuse Catholics. All terms are relative to Fundamentalism and are meant rather to be understood in degrees rather than absolutes. So while a Protestant may see the Kingdom of Heaven being right now, they do not mean it in the same way as a Catholic, as they see the kingdom as amorphous, spiritual, non-specific to denomination or church. It is a body of believers who are joined by emotional and spiritual ties to Christ, not an actual physical corporate church as Catholics see it. Even the word "salvation" has different nuances between groups. So here goes...

Note: Neither Catholics nor Protestants believe that "works" are works of the Mosaic Law, but works of charity and faith. The New Covenant Law is the Law of Christians. Also Fundamentalists should note that in the Catholic worldview Jesus came to fulfill the Messianic promise to begin a new eternal Davidic Kingdom promised to Israel, this is vital to understand some of its dogma and doctrine.

MODELS of Salvation:

Protestant: Jesus came to conquer death and sin for us and now we, by faith, can accept this free gift and upon death enter eternal life. This is done as an individual. Emphasis tends toward focusing on salvation as a release from eternal damnation. Assurance of salvation bring security until you enter the physical Kingdom of God in heaven. Works are fruits of God living in you but do not affect salvation. You must be perfect to reside in the presence of God.

Catholic: Christ came to begin His kingdom and his sacrifice released those who enter his kingdom from the bondage of sin. Now, through God’s grace and your obedience of faith, you can become perfect. Emphasis of salvation tends towards release from slavery of sin. Assurance of salvation comes through sacraments because you are already in Kingdom. Works are fruits of God living in you and do affect your ability to see God face to face. You must be perfect to reside in the presence of God.

Whereas Protestants believe a “born again” experience is the entry way into salvation, Catholics believe it is the faith of baptism. Faith is not only personal but community-based. A parent’s faith can bring their child into the kingdom, a husband’s faith can sanctify his wife. There is a storehouse of faith within the Church which Christians can draw from. 

Protestant Model in Visual Form:

Holy Spirit come to sinner as an accountable person and they have a born-again experience in which they become “saved” from eternal damnation. They then are assured upon death that they will enter the Kingdom of heaven. From then on all their sins are covered by the blood of Christ and they will--until death--struggle with sin and though the will remain sinners stained with original sin, Jesus’ merits stand in their place and when called into Judgement, Christ’s life stands in place of their life. At some point after death, their characters will be miraculously transformed into perfection without any attempt of their own and without their realizing it. Hell is for those who did not have a faith experience nor applied the blood of Jesus to their lives.

_(sinner w/o faith)____|___(saved sinner: sins covered)___|___(KOH)___________

                                    |                                                        |

faith experience                                        Death/Judgement

                                        (sin miraculously extracted w/o person's knowledge)

Catholic Model in Visual Form:

Catholics teach that a person is baptized into the Kingdom of Heaven by either their own faith or their parents. They are now inside the family covenant and have entered the Kingdom of God (this would correlate with Protestant "born again" status). Baptism cleanses the person of original sin and now, living the Kingdom, they are no longer enslaved by sin, but able, through God’s grace to become perfect. Within the Kingdom, sacraments are freely given to encourage, uplift and perfect the saint. At the second coming or death is judgment. If one is not perfect and remains attached to certain sins, they then go to purgatory to learn repentance. After that they are able to stand face to face with God in his glory as a perfected and beautiful bride. Hell is for those who reject all light of love, faith and hope until death. 

✟ inaugurates KOH____(sinner baptized into KOH/becomes saint)__|___(See Christ face to face) 

                                                                                                    |

Death/Judgment

                                                                                                   |

                                                                          (if not yet perfect, purgatory, then Heaven)

While Protestants believe if you are not “saved” you go to hell, Catholics believe that God’s mercy is available for all and we cannot say who goes to hell, it is His judgement not ours.

The main difference is that Protestants look forward to a physical Kingdom of Heaven upon death and resurrection. Catholics believe that the physical Kingdom was established at Pentecost. Entry into eternal life (born-again status) for the Protestant is at an experience where he or she allowed the Lord to come into their hearts and they make Him Lord. For the Catholic it is baptism. While Protestants believe "regeneration" happens at death, Catholics believe "regeneration" happens at baptism.  

Both Catholics and Protestants believe scripture backs up their positions. So if we are to communicate, we need to understand the nuances in words and the models of their biblical worldview. 

Hopefully this will help. 

God bless,

Teresa

My Journey to the Whole Bible

I have always had a love and fascination for the Bible. When I was twelve, I took the money saved from my birthday and began a life-long collection of Bible translations. I bought a tiny, pocket sized leather-bound RSV and began highlighting passages that meant so much to me as a child. Interestingly, even as a Seventh-day Adventist growing up educated in their schools with all the legalism of the day, I look back and many of my favorite verses were about grace. 

With that same money I bought several other Bibles, I found a large Bible on sale: $12. I remember it perfectly. This Bible was odd, it was called the Jerusalem Bible and had some extra parts to it. Only later did I learn this was a Catholic Bible and I placed it carefully, maybe even with a bit of fear on my shelf and as the years went by more Bibles were set next to it, without it being disturbed. When I returned from an Adventist boarding academy, I had a couple more translations to add to my Bible shelf. Eventually as an adult I picked the Catholic Bible up and read it. Those books called Judith and Tobit and Maccabees--those books that I was told were not supposed to be in there, just didn’t seem much of a threat. Yes, I agreed, they didn’t seem like the rest of scripture to me, so I didn’t think much about it.

After having children (with my Bible collection growing into the dozens), I pursued one of my other passions--art. My art book collection rivaled and surpassed my Bible collection (after all, there are only so many translations!) But one day I bought a book that would bring my two passions together: a book about Bible manuscripts. Inside was examples of the Latin Vulgate from the earliest insular script on vellum through the gorgeously illuminated Bibles of the middle ages through the printed Bibles of the 19th century. The book was about the history of the Bible written by a curator who worked at the British Museum, and it came from a strictly artistic position with no agenda. Page after page I read about and saw manuscripts that contained books I recognized from the Catholic Bible I had on my shelf. It made me wonder, why those books were in there? When did the Catholics put in those extra books? 

Over the next few years I began to study this subject of how the Bible came about. I took classes, bought many books on the making of the canon and the history of the Bible. I wanted to know: What books were in the original manuscripts? We even took vacation time to go to Bible meccas of the US such as the King James Version shrines at the Pensacola Christian College and at Bob Jones University. Wherever there was a place we could see very old Bibles, we went. We saw early Indian American versions in their native language, Pacific Islander Bibles, Gutenberg Bibles, Uncial Bibles, Psalters, gospels, Great Bibles, microscopic Bibles, Constantine Bibles (Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc.)  --Bibles Bibles everywhere! 

Then providentially we moved for a year to the DC area and I spent many hours at the Library of Congress in their Bible manuscript department. I got special permission to go deep into their vaults to look at their Bible collection with the curator standing beside me (with white gloves and special equipment to turn pages). I just couldn’t believe it and I certainly don’t expect Protestants to believe it on my word alone. But in ALL the Bibles pre-17th century there were those “extra” books. I never saw ONE Bible pre-Reformation that had the same exact set of books as the Protestant of today. Some of the early canons in different areas of the world, I heard about from the scholars, even had books like “The Epistle of Clement” and “Shepherd of Hermas” and the “Didache” included in their list of scripture. Spending so much time with the Library of Congress Bible Manuscript Archive curator gave me time to ask a plethora of questions. All that made me rethink my Protestant assumptions about Sola Scriptura.

All scholars both Protestant and Catholic--including world renown Christian theologians Dr. James I. Packer and Dr. Bart Ehrman who I personally correspondence with--and who I took classes from and read their books.... ALL agreed that the “apocryphal” books known to Catholics as “deuterocanonicals” were always in scripture up until the Protestant Reformers took them out. Protestant scholars defended taking them out to be sure, but they admitted they had always been there up until the Westminster Confession.

Why they took them out is another long story I will not broach in this post. 

But I thought it very strange that the Reformers, who claimed the Bible to be the only and sole authority for the Christian would actually think they had the right to begin disassembling their very authority based upon what they personally believed shouldn’t be in there. As if God had just allowed His word to be corrupted by extra books through those long centuries to trick the Christians into believing in purgatory and penance, praying for the dead and Marian doctrine. I guess if those books had been in there and the Christians had actually thought at that time the Bible was really from God and infallible, then certainly THEY could not be blamed for the doctrine which arose from those scriptures. It was the Bible’s fault for tripping them up into false doctrine. 

But then I wondered, did God really tell the Reformers to take books out of scripture? If so, then why did different Reformers take out different books at first? Martin Luther wanted James and Revelation gone. Different Protestant factions, for a while, simply tore out the books they didn’t like and left the rest. There are 17th and 18th-century Bibles we still have today in which the Index has all the books, including the deuterocanonicals, but the inside has only the Protestant books. (Upon closer detection, the cover had been replaced and the extra binding where the books were torn out, was folded over to make it look complete.) 

This is one of the reasons Catholics and Protestants have a hard time communicating. The Catholics have a larger Bible that DOES support some of the doctrines the Protestants say are not BIBLICAL! Now, that is a problem. When a Protestant premises themselves on Sola Scriptura, you have to ask, which Bible?

The subject is worth the research. Here are some suggested readings to get you started: 

____________________________

Whose Bible is it?: A Short History of the Scriptures by Jaroslav Pelikan (I think he is Orthodox, not sure).

The Canon of Scripture by F. F. Bruce (Protestant)

Bruce M Metzger has many books available on this subject. (Protestant)

If you wish the Catholic side, let me know, I try to find some Catholic books about this subject.

Catholic to Protestant Dictionary

One objection I keep hearing from my Protestant friends about Catholicism is that it is too complex. God would not have made it so difficult. The gospel is simple, no?

I have two responses, neither of which are profound, but just thinking....

First response. Japanese is a very complex language. I cannot even begin to understand how they speak or write. Yet babies born in Japan seem to get it. It is only when you have been raised speaking another language and are trying to learn it as an adult that it is complex. This is how it is with Catholicism. If you have been raised in its doctrine, it isn't at all complicated--deep yes, but very understandable. When you are trying to go from Protestant to Catholic, this is when it becomes tricky. Japan is obviously a different language than English, so when you need to communicate you go get an interpreter.

However, Protestants simply assume that because we use the same words, that there is communication going on between our faiths when we speak. That is not true. Catholicism is based upon a belief system that began in Jerusalem by HEBREWS, influenced by the GREEKS, who then dispersed into LATIN and GERMANIC speaking areas---almost two millennia ago!

It is a ancient Italic-Germanic-Hellenized-Jewish culture that Catholicism grew up and developed in. Add to this trying to translate its doctrines into 21st century American English.... This is a formidable task. It takes a lot of interpreting for a Protestant to understand. There is a fundamentally different worldview with a faith language that is profoundly different and Protestants are not even aware of this and assume they can understand Catholicism on a superficial discussion. It took me years to learn the language of Catholicism.

We need to be very patient and understanding of Protestants. They need to understand that they cannot "get" Catholicism in soundbites, just as they cannot understand Japanese in soundbites. It takes time and patience and tenacity. None of which anyone seems to have today.

Second response. Who said the gospel was simple? I don't see that anywhere in scripture. To me, it seems a little insulting to our Creator to characterize the plan of salvation, the great mystery kept from the foundation of the earth, upon which the angels look in breathtaking wonder, shrouded in symbols until the fulfillment of time when God became man, born of a virgin who then saved the world by dying on a cross--what about that is simple?

When I look at creation, I see nothing simple. It is excruciatingly, amazingly complex and intricate and yet streamline. God simple? Wow. That wouldn't come close to how I would try and explain the gospel. It took tongues of fire falling down from heaven in order for those who had been with him for years to begin to understand. His thoughts are far, far above our thoughts.

So,

Catholicism, as the language of those who live in Japan, is very, very complex and mysterious to us Americans. And yet, if you are raised within its culture, it is natural to you, just as those little children who came and looked upon the face of Christ understood His love. It is natural to begin to understand when you see Him.

We need to remind Protestants that Catholicism was born of a very different and ancient culture that can be very confusing to us today. Interpretation is needed, patience and tenacity is vital in true communication between us.

Catholics and Assurance of Salvation

There is a difference between Protestant and Catholic. A BIG difference that I see many people trying to downplay. We have so many theological points we agree on, but how we get to them is vastly different. 

Lately I have been watching realcatholictv.com. I absolutely love it. Michael Voris is the man!! Awesome. (For the really good stuff you have to pay a measly $10 a month for Premium membership, but well, well worth it for anyone who is Catholic or is interested in Catholicism.)

However... (and this is certainly not a criticism of Michael Voris, but he simply reminded me of what I have wanted to tell Catholics since starting RCIA)... 

Bridging the gap between a Catholic and Protestant worldview.... whew... that is a monumental task, full of misunderstandings. 

Let me give you a for instance. 

About “assurance of salvation.”

Catholic teach against saying you are “saved.” And with their perspective it is a perfectly Biblical and truthful way of seeing things. However, Catholics need to step into a Protestant worldview and they will understand how vital this doctrine for spiritual survival. 

Let me start with a visual. Protestants are holding onto a thin rope that reaches into heaven and that is their only connection to God. This rope is their assurance that God loves them, that God is there for them, that God is going to protect them and keep them safe from the Devil. This rope is their only hope! 

Joe Blow Fundamentalist is certain that God is indifferent (or worse) to those who have not had a born-again experience. (Some denominations teach God loves them but still is impotent to save them...) Those without a relationship with Christ “in their hearts” are children of wrath. Nothing they can or will ever do--no matter how good-- will please God. Their righteousness is as filthy rags. They are without hope and destined for eternal damnation until they “gets saved.” Baptism does nothing more than make a public announcement that a person has been born again. Protestant parents do everything possible to get their children and other loved ones “saved.” For it is in that experiential miracle, that great “aha” cosmic event of grace, that they know God loves them. That is their proof moment (like a proof-text). Their greatest fears, their eternal self-hatred ceases and they can know--know--that they are no longer a child of wrath.

They have nothing else. They don’t have a community of faith that reaches back to the Apostles and into the heavens. They don’t have real sacraments--only lifeless simulations, imitating symbols. They don’t have Peter. For a Protestant it is just Jesus and me. They have nothing tangible--no relics, no rites. You cannot and should not try and cut that rope of assurance and connection with Christ. 

You see they cling to the rope with all their heart and soul. It is their sabbath rest. 

“Jesus loves me this I know. Now my life has meaning. Now I am loved....” 

To a Protestant--the Kingdom of God is still yet to come... an actual community with structure--that is simply not going to happen till Christ comes again. They do not live with the idea that there is an actual kingdom--organization--community. They cannot rely on anyone or anything. They have no exterior backup. They will argue that they have their church--but that, I assure you in their minds, does not have the weight, the gravitas of the actual Kingdom that goes straight back to Jesus himself. They take comfort in a tiny island of misfit toys awaiting Santa Claus. They do not have a powerful kingdom to give them comfort--truth--clarity. Everything for a Protestant is dependent on a future security... all they have today is a hope.... an assurance that one day, they will be safely in the Kingdom.

To attempt convincing them they can’t know they are saved and proving it with Bible texts is not the avenue to their souls and understanding. When someone is clinging to a spiritual rope, telling them the rope is weak, stupid.... unbiblical--- well, don’t go that route.

Instead, describe the rock, the foundation. Describe how Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom. Spend your time--not arguing the validity of the rope--but the incredible safety of the rock! 

Baptism is it!! Baptism is entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. From that point on you are in, you are no longer a child of wrath, but a child destined for salvation. You are a part of a vast Christian family that extends from heaven into purgatory. This Cosmos of love ushers you into the safety of God’s sheep fold. It’s gates are strong, it’s walls are vast and indestructible and high! Protestants need security.

Talk about the community of those in heaven who constantly pray for our souls and their faith combines with ours to make ours strong and vital and perfect! In Catholicism you are never alone. You have Mary and the saints who have had two millennia of showing us the way to Jesus.  

Talk about the sealing of the spirit through anointing and consecration.

Show them that in the ancient church, God has many, many shepherds He has placed in command. These priest-heroes have given up the comfort of wife and family to rescue His lost sheep if they stray. They are there to give the comfort and security of the sacrament of reconciliation. Talk about the Eucharist as the heavenly manna, the bread of immortality and the receiving of the divine life. 

Talk about the safety of the Kingdom of Heaven. 

For when you do you are not cutting their rope, but you are saying “POINT YOUR TOES!!”

For when they point their toes, the Christian hanging desperately onto the rope will find that right below their feet--an inch or two--is the ROCK of our salvation. The foundation of the Kingdom of Heaven. Eventually when they get their bearings, when they begin to trust the rock of Catholicism, they will let go of the rope. They will know their souls are safe inside the sheepfold.

Don’t panic theologians! I am not saying teach them the once-saved-always-saved doctrine. Tell them--if they really want--they can leave.... God will not bolt the door so they cannot ever go against Him. Even as a child of God, we can choose to leave.

Often I get the feeling Catholics see the idea of assurance-of-eternal-life as giving license to Protestants to go out and do what they want, haughtily dismissing sin as irrelevant--the whole Lutheran “sin with gusto” thing. This is truly not the case for the vast amount of Protestants.

Many Protestants have spent their entire lives in crushing torment over being the child of wrath, the lowest of the low, a sinner in need of a Savior, whose only hope was in the little phrase “blessed assurance.” They are told that it only takes faith and God will accept you and love you. With faith, the former child of wrath can walk in confidence knowing he is a member of the household of God.  For the first time, they have joy and begin experiencing the gospel of peace. 

They need to be treated with the kindest of intentions. Catholics needs to be even more nurturing. Show them the beauties and infinite mercy found in the treasury of faith of Catholicism. Show them inside the Kingdom of God, there is no fear, but immeasurable grace. 

The Joy of Catholic Unity

The Trinity.

One of the most mysterious and frankly challenging beliefs in all Christianity. Three in one. Impossible, absurd. But it forms the basis of all of Catholic thinking. I am probably not going where you think I am going with this, so please stick with me for a moment.

Three in One. Multiples within the single. It is not the heresy of collectivism where the soul loses itself and melds into oblivion. Neither is it a worse heresy of radical individualism where the soul is isolated and in need of no one. No, the mystery of God is the Triune--not a single, not a unit, but a completeness, a unity. God's essence, His very nature is communal.

Every breath of Catholicism calls us to this same unity. The very definition of sin is that which breaks our oneness with God.

Sin is not a set of acts or deeds that the Lord sifted through, like examining objects at a garage sale, then  labelled one "evil" and another "good" depending on His mood. The things that cause our souls, our minds to fracture, those things which tear us from the wholeness of being Christ's beloved--that is what sin is. What was the punishment for sin? Again, I do not believe it was a random, unrelated punishment. It was more of a prophecy of disintegration. When we pull against our original unity with God, our souls and flesh are torn apart, they decay into separateness. That is the definition of death, the separation of the soul from the body; the very fibers, sinews, bones, skin, organs separate from themselves and deteriorate.

When you examine the core of Catholic teaching, it is all meant to bring us back into unity--with ourselves, our fellow humans and God. God is our example--Trinity--the unity of three in one.

The unity of marriage was to serve as an example of what God's relationship to His bride looks like: "The Two shall be one flesh." The man and wife--but also the child and parent are actually part of each other's flesh.

The highest and holiest form of worship for a Catholic is the Sunday mass where the bride is called by her Beloved to come and share eternity with Him. Share His life, His sufferings, His resurrection, His very body with her. She is called to the the Marriage Supper and every shared song, amen, liturgical reading, even the shared cup reminds us that each one, each individual is vitally important to the completeness and wholeness of the Body. It is a mystery we partake in--God came down and partook of humanity, that we may, through His body and Blood, partake in Divinity.

We are called to lay aside our monomania, our rights, our very life to become part of that great incomprehensible wonder of Unity.

Does Christianity Fulfill Paganism or Is It Based On Paganism?

What did worship look like in ancient (non-Christian, polytheistic) cultures?

Faith: Polytheistic religions used the phrase, "the fates" to describe how one placed the the future in the hands of the gods, but it is essentially the same as belief in, trust in the power of one's god. Although scholars today tend to imagine that the more technologically advanced civilizations discarded a real "heart belief" and simply followed worship to one's gods ritualistically, that theory is not backed up archeologically. There are thousands and thousands of prayers from these periods that show a deep sincerity of faith to their gods.

Prayer: Pagan prayers took both communal and personal characteristics much like Christian prayers today. They saw prayer as a pathway to contact with the gods. Each prayer not only included praise towards the deity, but requests and petitions as well as promises to perform acts to honor the gods.

Mystery: The idea of clashing supernatural forces of good and evil and that man has a place in this ultimate fight is also an age-old idea.

Visions and Prophecies: Dating back thousands of years before Christianity, oracles and supernatural ecstasies, very similar to Pentecostalism, were part of religion. The ancient Shrine at Delphi is a place where pagan prophecies and visions took place.

Healing: All religious systems had rituals and prayers that the adherents believed would cause the gods to heal them. They even held "healing" services and ancient records describe the miraculous healings.

Virtue: Honest and ethical behavior was expected from most ancient religions, although they may differ from our standards somewhat. Misbehavior was expected to bring bad luck or punishment from the gods. Pythagoreans and Epicureans had traditions that taught certain ways of life brought reward.

Scriptures: Not all religions had written laws and stories given from their gods, some did such as Hindu, Buddhism--but all had oral proscriptions and legends about how the gods formed the world and how they expect us to behave. These were considered sacred very much like Christians consider the Bible.

Divine Calling: Polytheistic religions believed certain people had a "divine" calling to teach others about their gods.

Sacredness: Pagan religions had places (churches), people (pastors, evangelists), things and times (holy days) they set aside as sacred.

Sacrifices: Pagan religions included sacrifices of unblemished animals that were taken to the temple and immolated after being anointed with salt and flour by the person giving the sacrifice.

The similarities are endless-- Pagans and Christians both have:
Conversion stories
Pagan Messianic prophecies that resembled Christianity: Virgin birth of deity who becomes savior of man.
Born-again rituals
Heaven for the righteous
Hell for the sinner
Purgatory
Final--last day events--Armageddon
Creeds and doctrines
Certain cults in polytheism claimed they should be free to worship the gods as their conscience dictated
Predestination
Immortality of the soul (for certain people)
Soul sleep (for other persons)
Saints
Heretics
Holy wars
Inquisition
Marriage ceremonies with cake, lifting bride over threshold, wedding rings (many other similarities)

When King Solomon said millennia ago that there is nothing new under the sun, he was right. Being a Christian, I am certainly not saying that Christianity is the same. I am just saying Christian forms of worshipping and even some theology are very similar to paganism.

So, when we realize that Christianity brought very little unique to religious rites and beliefs, we have a clear choice. Is Christianity a mere culling from the past? Are the critics correct when they say because Christianity brings relatively nothing new to religion and that it is similar to polytheism, that Christian roots are pagan?

Christians must acknowledge that arguments that point out the similarities are logical and that one can look at the facts and surmise that Christianity is simply a new form of paganism. However, it is just as logical to look at the similarities and suggest that Christianity fulfills paganism. That the ubiquitousness of religion and its cycles of mysteries and beliefs---rather than invalidate and disprove religion--does quite the opposite. These repeated similar beliefs, known in all languages, all geographical areas of the world, all time periods, all phases of evolution and development of civilization rather prove something... There is A TRUTH they are pointing to....

We can look at these facts and logically, reasonably surmise that these all came from an original source. And Christianity claims that original source.

"In the fullness of time" Christ came and fulfilled it all. He was what these promises, recycled and corrupted as they were by different societies, were pointing to.

To my Protestant Friends: 

Please, be mindful of suggesting that Catholicism is wrong and erroneous because their rites and rituals look similar to paganism. If you use the logic that, "if it is similar to paganism" and predates Catholicism therefore, it is then evil or sinful, you have just cut your own throat.  You certainly can say that because Christmas trees began in Druid homes, therefore it is evil to have Christmas trees, but then you must logically say that if Druids prayed then it must be evil to pray.

To have a clear and coherent argument you must prove the intrinsic evilness of an action rather than a comparative argument such "since jailbird Billy grew up reading The Hardy Boys series, therefore the Hardy Boys series are evil and we should not allow our children to read them." That is a lose-lose argument for the Christian.

Look at the above list. All of these religious beliefs and practices predated Christianity and all were used in polytheistic worship. So if Catholicism is evil for similar worship, anyone else's worship that looks similar is also. That logic can be used to prove Protestantism is ALSO based in paganism.

Paganism was the mimic, the distorted mirror of an ancient truth.... a truth that came to its climax, its actualization in Christ.

We do not let go of the doctrine, the rites because they have been fulfilled. They were NEVER wrong--but were corrupted by the evil one so that the form would be deflected into false worship. Now our worship--of prayers, holy days, prophecies, etc. are fully realized and made perfect through the Savior.


Sourced from these classes I took:
The History of Ancient Rome by Dr. Garrett G. Fagan, Pennsylvania State University
Christian History by Michael Voris, St. Michael's Ministries
Early Christianity: The Experience of the Divine, Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson, Emory University
The Story of the Bible: Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson, Emory University
The Early Middle Ages: Dr. Philip Daileader, College of William and Mary
From Jesus to Constantine: A History of the Early Church, Dr. Bart Erman, UNC Chapel Hill
The History of the Bible: The Making of the New Testament Canon, Dr. Bart Erman, UNC Chapel Hill