My 3rd year as a Christian begins...
...it's been barely over 3 years as a Christian. So much happened, yet there's still much for me to do. My decision to turn Christian was certainly a real shock to me. Three years ago I went on a retreat and I ended up turning Christian virtually on my real birthday (i.e. one day before). My whole worldview completely changed. It's as if I was born into a world of darkness, and suddenly I was freed from the darkness and brought into the light. It's just that I have lots of filthiness still latched onto my soul. Of course the world 'looked' the same but everything was clearly different, just like Neo from the Matrix when he was unplugged. I began to see things differently from before: A Christian perspective was forming.
I grew up going to church with my family but none of us were really serious about it, except my grandfather. And I could never understand a word he said. Plus, somehow throughout high school I grew to hate modern praise music. Things certainly changed. Even during my first few months at Harvest, it took some to get used to modern praise music, especially when they're a bit more 'extreme' than other 'more traditional' protestant worship services, particularly Presbyterians. But now there's something about liturgical worship that I'm attracted to. I can't explain what it is, because it's clearly not the music. Even when I went to Yeoksam Cathedral in Korea, the music was modern praise music. While I think I prefer Gregorian chant, there's clearly something about Mass that's different from what I grew up with. Sometimes I'd walk into a chapel and feel as if I'm surrounded by 'myriads and myriads of angels' (Hebrews 12:22). When the bread and wine is offered, I can often times feel God's presence manifesting. It's so bizarre. When I'd pray the prayers or recite whatever, God's up to something big. It's not always so obvious to me, but there's something about liturgy, and I really don't know what it is that I love about it.
And so, I'm on my way to becoming Catholic. I'm interested in many things Catholic. If I knew 3 years ago that I'd abandon doctrines like blessed assurance, faith alone and scripture alone by becoming Catholic I think I would've gone insane. ;) And to think that I'd also embrace preterism, namely that Christ's 2nd coming is already past!?!? WOW... LOL!! So much changed since then. This is a really long post, so I decided to break this up into sections using the lj-cut feature.
Rambling on about weird sola scriptura arguments
Actually a few days ago I came across some arguments saying that Eph 3:4 teaches sola scriptura...which in truth is a BIG black eye for protestants, because Eph 3:3-4 says there's a letter that apostle Paul wrote to the Ephesians prior to the NT epistle to the Ephesians. But there's a problem: The book doesn't exist! And if Eph 3:4 is a proof text for sola scriptura (i.e. the individual must read the previous letter to understand the 'mystery of Christ'), then wow....talk about pessimistic Christianity!!! Basically, some argue that one only needs the scriptures to know the full mystery of Christ, and since St. Paul basically tells his readers read the previous letter (which was obviously lost!), then EVERY Christian CANNOT ever understand the full mystery of Christ. On top of that Eph 3:4 doesn't say a single word about knowing the fully mystery of Chrst, rather it speaks of his original readers gaining Paul's insight in knowing the mystery of Christ. LOL! I'm so glad I'm not the person using that argument...WOW...talk about REALLY BAD exegesis!! ;)
Another argument I often come across are things like 2 Tim 3:16-17. Basically, the main argument is scripture is all one needs to be 'thorough equipped' for every good work, thus sola scriptura. And so they assume that by simply reading the bible, the reader will be 'equipped for every good work', yet the text says nothing about reading it! But it does tell us that scripture does 'teach, rebuke, correct, and train' which parallels Eph 4:11-13 (particularly verse 12). Both 2 Tim 3:17 and Eph 4:12 speak of the body of Christ being 'built up' or 'thoroughly equip' (which mean basically point to the same thing): fully maturity in Christ, which is why the 'five-fold ministry' exists, so that the teachers would perfect the saints! (that's what Eph 4:11-13 says!)
And if we only need to read the bible to become fully equip, then we might as well ignore preachers, since preaches exist for "...warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." (Col 1:28, NKJV) Clearly preachers are as necessary as the scriptures. Someone has to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15, cf. Acts 8:30-35)
Additionally, protestants say 'all scripture' refers to 66 books (or perhaps 73). But they don't consider the other possibilities of 'all scripture': Agnostics/freethinkers say it refers literally to every single text in the world, since all scripture means just that all scripture ;)
Yet the context tell us something REALLY important:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:14-17)
And so verse 14 says the scriptures Timothy used was the Old Testament! So all scripture is referring to the old testament scriptures, which means if 2 Tim 3:16-17 is a sola scriptura proof text, then SOLA SCRIPTURE MEANS SOLA OLD TESTAMENT!!! WOW.....might as well ignore the entire New Testament!!
The two passages (Eph 3:3, 2 Tim 3:16-17) says nothing about scripture as the final authority!!
So my protestant foundation on the two major pillars (sola scripture, and sola fide) began to crumble. It was difficult to leave my protestant upbringing. While I wasn't exactly a fundamentalist, I never considered becoming Catholic. About 6-7 months into my Christian life, I remember studying preterism, which is a radical approach to the end times: That most of Revelation's been fulfilled, especially Christ's second coming which was said to happen in the lifetime of the apostles (Mark 8:38-9:1), within their generation (Mark 13:30), and that the high priest would live to witness it (Matt 26:64), which is exactly why Jesus was accused of blasphemy (Matt 26:65)!!! Even today in class, professor Smith went over Mark's gospel and when we went over chapter 8-9, he made a statement how Mark 9:1 clearly mean that the disciples expected the end to be LITERALLY in their lifetime!!
"Preterism: Was Jesus wrong?"
That was something I often thought as a young believer. Was aposle Paul insane by telling the Corinthians to suddenly become single (though already married??) Or single people to not marry? Or to not mourn or be happy? (1 Cor 7:26-31) Even today in class, professor Smith went over Mark's gospel and made a statement how there's all sorts of eschatological expectation throughout the entire NT. Nearly all the NT authors believed the end was really at hand (Acts 2:17, Heb 1:2, James 5:3, 1 John 2:18). And so I seriously wondered whether Christianity can stand against such a problem. Clearly, this was a major weak point that almost stirred me away from the faith: Were all the NT authors insane by thinking the end times was so close to them!? Or could it be that a mere human like me, and many others misunderstood the meaning of 'end times'?
I grew up with the typical 'end is near, get saved' Christianity that was common with my old church: they were all concerned about people being left behind. So after I gave my life over to God, the thought of the end being near really tore apart my soul. Of course I came up with all sorts of hermeneutical gymnastics (which didn't really last) to combat the preterist claims that Jesus was right by saying he'd come in the lifetime of the apostles. It was so clear to me that any argument wouldn't work, since it demands that the apostles were delusional and Jesus made a mistake--a claim that many skeptics say. Plus it would mean that I still have to obey 1 Cor 7:26-31. I remember some were telling me that apostle Paul CLEARLY made a mistake in that passage...and there were from Christians!! Which made me think, "If apostle Paul is wrong, how can I trust he wasn't some false teacher!?" Eventually, I realized that people like Bertrand Russell has at least one legitimate reason to reject Christianity: Jesus said a bunch of things that would happen within his generation, which didn't happen. Yet, as I began studying the preterist doctrines, I came to realize it harmonizes all odd texts of the NT and refutes the notion of Jesus as false prophet.
The idea that prophetic language wasn't taken literally opened my eyes: Isaiah 13:10 was a prophetic statement that Jesus seems to quote. Yet Isaiah 13 was fulfilled in the 539 BC. HUH?!?!? And then there's more apocalyptic lingo that appears in God's coming to Edom in 703BC (Isa 34:3-5), God's coming to Egypt in 572BC (Eze 32:7-11), God's coming to Nineveh in 612BC (Nahum 1). Such weird statements....And then there's Psalm 18:7-15. Verses 14-15 sound like Greek mythology, which clearly sounds like apocalyptic language that appears in Revelation. Yet, King David was describing God's hand in delivering him from his enemies and Saul. HUH!?!? Then it began to make sense that Matthew 24:29 was a Jewish idiom. Clearly 2000 years ago, the Jews had their set of lingo which probably doesn't always make sense to the modern reader. One example is Exodus 19:4, which didn't happen literally. And I'm some smart@$$ skeptic would say, "Hey that contradicts Moses leading the people out of Egypt!" Clearly, on "eagles' wings" was not meant literally. Even now if I were to look outside and say, "It's raining cats and dogs", someone 2000 years in the future might think, "WHAT IN THE WORLD!?!?" ;) And so this is the interpretive key to understanding Revelation: The context of the Old Testament.
And this is where my desire to study theology instantly grew. I began to be like the Bereans (cf. Acts 17:11) and constantly check scriptures to see if what I'm told is true. I'd always consider a passage in light of passages that speak of the same thing: fortunately, this improved my reading comprehension skills, and so I now enjoy reading novels since biblical hermeneutics improved my ability to make connections :)
I was shocked to discover that evildoers would exist even in the age to come (Rev 22:15), not to mention that pain is heavily implied in Rev 22:2!! Rev 21:4 looked like a clear contradiction that troubled me until, I realized Lam 2:11 (or the entire book for that matter) is a reference to breaking the covenant. Click here for a commentary I did on Rev 21:1-4. Additionally, the preterist answer about the whore of babylon as old covenant Jerusalem made so much sense. Click here for more info on that. And so I was convinced that the preterist interpretation is right, or at least primarily correct. The strong emphasis on the passing of one covenant as well as the establishment of the new covenant made so much sense in light of the preterist interpretation:
Preterism gave way for my understanding Catholicism
The more I studied preterism, I somehow found out about Scott Hahn, who's both a preterist and Catholic. So this is where my inquiry into Catholicism began. I found out he was a former presbyterian, which made me think: WHAT IN THE WORLD!?!? SOME GUY ACTUALLY LEFT PRESBYTERIANISM TO BECOME CATHOLIC!?!?
I found out that he would've been a full preterist had it not been for the creeds, and so I began to wonder why he became Catholic. Also, for anyone to become a preterist, one cannot simply believe what's told, like most 'catholics', but rather one has to seriously study the preterist teachings. It's impossible for anyone to accept the preterist teachings unless one goes about learning about it. It's just too controversial for Christians to simply believe that a good chunk (if not all) of Revelation's been fulfilled. So I figured, if Hahn is a preterist, the he must've SERIOUSLY studied enough to know about Catholicism. And so I would've never considered reading anything by anyone else (since I was so narrow minded into thinking that Catholics don't study the Bible).
Immediately, I picked up all his books, and began asking questions. I bought even more books and slowly realized the beauty of the Church. And his book, The Lamb's Supper was a great introduction to the Mass from a preterist perspective. Incidently, if I'm living in the age to come, then there's some blessings that I can experience, yet I wasn't sure what applies today. One thing for sure, one of Christ's purposes for the second coming was for bringing salvation (Heb 9:27, 1 Pet 1:5). And this made so much sense out of the Catholic view of salvation as a lifelong process. As a Catholic preterist, the principle of remaining in Christ still applies. One verse that caught my eye was Rev 14:13 "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on." But even deeper than that, Hahn's book basically spelled out the reality of the Eucharist, since it's the wedding supper of the lamb (Rev 19:9). The Greek word for 'coming' (as in second coming) is 'parousia' which also means 'presence'. The significance is that if Revelation is (at least in part) a depiction of Mass, then His presence would be made manifest in the end of the book of Revelation, just as the Eucharist is at the end of Mass. Hahn's understanding of preterism and Catholicism made so much sense to me: One of the greatest New Covenant realities I can experience IS THE EUCHARIST!!
I think this was about a year ago when I realized this truth. Eventually I accepted all the other teachings of the Church (7 sacraments, Communion of the Saints, Mary, purgatory, etc). I never really had a problem with papacy, and so I embraced Catholicism, yet I was afraid of what it would mean to become Catholic. It's one thing for me to be a Christian, it's a whole new dimension to be a Catholic. After enough prayer, and study, I couldn't deny it any longer: I was literally drawn to the Church. The more I'd ignore the Church, the stronger it would eventually come back with a vengeance. There was no denying it.
So my theological journey went from Fundamentalist (before I was a serious Christian) -> Reformed Charismatic -> Reformed Charismatic Preterist -> Charismatic Catholic Preterist
LOL I guess all these labels are a bit weird, but still, it's the best way to describe what I believe in terms of theology and how I 'practice' my Christianity. I guess the one thing I retained after becoming Christian was a strong emphasis on the gifts of the Holy Spirit. There's absolutely no way to get around it: It was the Holy Spirit that changed my heart, that convicted me of the need for grace as well as the ability to understand preterism in it's glory in conjunction with the Catholic Church. I owe a lot of everything I have to the Holy Spirit. Luke 12:10 suggests the Holy Spirit has primacy over even the Son! I don't know if that's right, but there seems to be little or not emphasis on the Spirit of God, yet the Spirit of God raised Jesus! The same spirit empowered Christ, and it's the Spirit that brings life (2 Cor 3:6)!! There's not enough emphasis on the Holy Spirit...
And so, theologically speaking, this is where I am right now. Perhaps a few years later I'll come across other completely different teachings
My concern for persecuted brethren
Over the years, my interest in persecuted Christians grew primarily through Phil Kim's influence and KCF. Through KCF, I met many brothers and sisters who were all interested in missionary work in China. Phil also subscribed to Voice of the Martyrs, which opened my eyes to persecution to China and N. Korea! This is where the floodgates opened up. I had no idea that persecution was a reality in N. Korea. I was completely oblivious to N. Korea. And eventually I read Soon Ok Lee's book. I also read the 70+ page thesis that on NK Missions. Immediately, my interest in N. Korea grew immensely. And now my concern for the persecuted (particularly Catholics in China and N. Korean refugees) is written all over my heart. I don't know if I can ever see myself as a Christian and NOT be concerned about them. N. Koreans are my own blood. Persecuted Catholics in China share in the same Eucharist with every other Catholic, while I still don't know what that's like, it'll be more of a reality once I turn Catholic.
I think I may've mentioned this before, but one of my dreams is to celebrate the Mass in N. Korea whenever it opens up. I get the feeling my ministry will be primarily geared towards N. Korean refugees than persecuted Catholics in China, since I have no contact with persecuted Catholics. Whereas, it's not too difficult for me to get in contact with Korean Christians helping out N. Korean refugees in hiding.
Spiritual Growth
As I look back at my past years, I've noticed I've grown quite a lot. While I still freak out every now and then, I freak out CONSIDERABLY less. I also find myself getting things done. Unfortunately, my devotions certainly need some improvement (especially when I'm busy with school work), but I find myself more organized before. I also notice how I freak out less when it comes to discussing some controversial theological things. In fact, I realized that I tend to mention these things only when I feel 'comfortable' or as comfortable as possible...which is like saying, "I'll only spread the gospel when I feel it's safe", quite a poor excuse. While I don't exactly enjoy getting into theological arguments, I realize that what I've learned about Catholicism is absolutely incredible, that I HAVE to share it with others around me. It doesn't make sense for me to 'hog' all my knowledge to myself and pretend that I don't know about it. It's like eating icecream away from my friends, so that I don't have to share, yet there's PLENTY of ice cream!! LOL
Silly analogy, but that's what it really comes down to: The things the Church teaches is really incredible stuff! And naturally, the thing to do is share that with others. The hard part is sharing these incredible thoughts without making them sound boring. So, many have the impression that I'm psycho, or I'm trying to stir up some weird debate, when in reality, I'm simply desiring to share some knowledge. I was always a deep thinker, so I'd spend lots of time dwelling on a particular passage in scripture. And that's always something on my mind in terms of theology...lately I've been thinking about the theology of suffering, and charismatic theology, since Mark focuses on both :) But anyway, I'm beginning to see which way I'm heading.
I could be completely off, but with my knowledge of theology, I might end up going to seminary, or at least it'd be great to lead a bible study of some sort. There's all sorts of other things still on my mind, like helping persecuted Christians. I'll definitely serve in N.E. China. :)
Girls
Of course, I had to mention something about girls. I occassionally still act silly around some. It's more or less an involuntary reaction. Sometimes I'd be talk'n to some random girl and I'd have to do whatever I can to clear my throat.. lol Doesn't happen as often as before, but it happens every now and then. Many times I just ignore it now. Some people don't even notice. But I noticed how it's so easy for me to give my heart away to some random pretty girl. It's like the typical mouse trap: The bait is right there...all I have to do is....reach over.....and..........*SNAP*....suddenly things aren't the same anymore. In a sense, I'd be tempted to simply take a girl out to dinner, and when I do, I notice how I'd be thinking about the girl for hours...sometimes even days!! Big mistake. I never knew what it was like to really date someone, so I had to learn the hard way. I guess it's not really considered dating, but it's something along those lines. As much as I'd like to be in a relationship with someone, it seems it won't happen soon, and on top of that, I'm actually not concerned about it. In fact I almost don't care: I'm too concerned with N. Korean refugees!
Yep...a girl still on my mind
Sometimes, I'd be a bit lonely, and it'd make me think about someone. It's not unbearable, it actually doesn't bother me much at all. But it's a bit strange because I still don't see any possibility of ever being with her, yet I still sometimes hope that something can happen. I'm repeating my old entries again... heh anyway....it's been nearly 2.5 years since I've known her, sometime during the summer I pretty much gave up on her. Actually, it was more like a process of converstion: Choosing to marry only a Catholic was difficult since it meant I wouldn't consider marrying a protestant. Then after I made that decision, I had to stick to it, and so I slowly got over her....or did I? While it's not like I have really strong feelings for her, I do think about what she's up to and such. Maybe I'm just wasting time. But she really left a strong impression on me. I once thought that she had something for me, but I wasn't really sure. Maybe she did, or still does?? I seriously wonder what she thinks of me....or more specifically, I wonder what she thinks of me turning Catholic? Well, there's no way I'll marry a non-Catholic, so I guess that almost settles it unless she's willing to turn Catholic. Yet, people like me don't exist: There's plenty stories of Catholics turning 'Christian' and rarely are there 'Christians' who turn Catholic. But maybe I'm thinking too much about this. In any case, I've nearly given up on her completely. Maybe I am wasting my time, since I haven't talked to her in ages anyway. Somehow, when it was her birthday, I forgot to say happy birthday. I guess I was too consumed with other things/girls. I wish I can go back about 5 weeks in the past and at least say happy birthday via email. But it's not like I can do that. It'd be weird to send a happy belated birthday message, that's for sure. I'm not terribly upset about it, but she's still somewhere in the back of my mind. Occassionally, I'd read her blog just to see what she's up to, and she still updates as she normally does.
I guess I make it sound like she's really important to me...well I guess she is, but I've almost ruled out the possibility of a relationship altogether, and so I don't plan to keep my hopes up. Though, it'd be good to see her again :) Ok so I'm clearly contradicting myself: My mind says one thing, while my heart says another....it's like I'm double minded....blah...but it's not really a contradiction, I'm probably just really bad at explaining myself. I know that I can get her off my mind if I wanted to and that's what I've done 95% of the time- I'm actually not thinking about her simply because I keep myself busy with all sorts of other things that are more important: God, school, planning for future work/ministry in Northeast China, etc. I actually didn't think I'd be able to keep my mind off of girls, but for the past few weeks I've actually done just that. Occassionally, I'd run into some cute girl and be attracted a bit, but I wouldn't let it get to me. After realizing the dangers, I'd simply resist the temptation: I have more important things on my mind -> God's kingdom! (Matt 6:33)
It's just every now and then, it'd be nice to see her. But then again, in the future I suspect she'll end up with someone else, and I'll end up either single or with some other girl somewhere in Asia. Regardless, God's kingdom takes precedence. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit enabled me to do just that: Seek the kingdom first over girls ;)
Ok...so it's a bit harder at the moment LOL!!
"Lord, slap me silly!!" ;)
I grew up going to church with my family but none of us were really serious about it, except my grandfather. And I could never understand a word he said. Plus, somehow throughout high school I grew to hate modern praise music. Things certainly changed. Even during my first few months at Harvest, it took some to get used to modern praise music, especially when they're a bit more 'extreme' than other 'more traditional' protestant worship services, particularly Presbyterians. But now there's something about liturgical worship that I'm attracted to. I can't explain what it is, because it's clearly not the music. Even when I went to Yeoksam Cathedral in Korea, the music was modern praise music. While I think I prefer Gregorian chant, there's clearly something about Mass that's different from what I grew up with. Sometimes I'd walk into a chapel and feel as if I'm surrounded by 'myriads and myriads of angels' (Hebrews 12:22). When the bread and wine is offered, I can often times feel God's presence manifesting. It's so bizarre. When I'd pray the prayers or recite whatever, God's up to something big. It's not always so obvious to me, but there's something about liturgy, and I really don't know what it is that I love about it.
And so, I'm on my way to becoming Catholic. I'm interested in many things Catholic. If I knew 3 years ago that I'd abandon doctrines like blessed assurance, faith alone and scripture alone by becoming Catholic I think I would've gone insane. ;) And to think that I'd also embrace preterism, namely that Christ's 2nd coming is already past!?!? WOW... LOL!! So much changed since then. This is a really long post, so I decided to break this up into sections using the lj-cut feature.
Rambling on about weird sola scriptura arguments
Actually a few days ago I came across some arguments saying that Eph 3:4 teaches sola scriptura...which in truth is a BIG black eye for protestants, because Eph 3:3-4 says there's a letter that apostle Paul wrote to the Ephesians prior to the NT epistle to the Ephesians. But there's a problem: The book doesn't exist! And if Eph 3:4 is a proof text for sola scriptura (i.e. the individual must read the previous letter to understand the 'mystery of Christ'), then wow....talk about pessimistic Christianity!!! Basically, some argue that one only needs the scriptures to know the full mystery of Christ, and since St. Paul basically tells his readers read the previous letter (which was obviously lost!), then EVERY Christian CANNOT ever understand the full mystery of Christ. On top of that Eph 3:4 doesn't say a single word about knowing the fully mystery of Chrst, rather it speaks of his original readers gaining Paul's insight in knowing the mystery of Christ. LOL! I'm so glad I'm not the person using that argument...WOW...talk about REALLY BAD exegesis!! ;)
Another argument I often come across are things like 2 Tim 3:16-17. Basically, the main argument is scripture is all one needs to be 'thorough equipped' for every good work, thus sola scriptura. And so they assume that by simply reading the bible, the reader will be 'equipped for every good work', yet the text says nothing about reading it! But it does tell us that scripture does 'teach, rebuke, correct, and train' which parallels Eph 4:11-13 (particularly verse 12). Both 2 Tim 3:17 and Eph 4:12 speak of the body of Christ being 'built up' or 'thoroughly equip' (which mean basically point to the same thing): fully maturity in Christ, which is why the 'five-fold ministry' exists, so that the teachers would perfect the saints! (that's what Eph 4:11-13 says!)
And if we only need to read the bible to become fully equip, then we might as well ignore preachers, since preaches exist for "...warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." (Col 1:28, NKJV) Clearly preachers are as necessary as the scriptures. Someone has to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15, cf. Acts 8:30-35)
Additionally, protestants say 'all scripture' refers to 66 books (or perhaps 73). But they don't consider the other possibilities of 'all scripture': Agnostics/freethinkers say it refers literally to every single text in the world, since all scripture means just that all scripture ;)
Yet the context tell us something REALLY important:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:14-17)
And so verse 14 says the scriptures Timothy used was the Old Testament! So all scripture is referring to the old testament scriptures, which means if 2 Tim 3:16-17 is a sola scriptura proof text, then SOLA SCRIPTURE MEANS SOLA OLD TESTAMENT!!! WOW.....might as well ignore the entire New Testament!!
The two passages (Eph 3:3, 2 Tim 3:16-17) says nothing about scripture as the final authority!!
So my protestant foundation on the two major pillars (sola scripture, and sola fide) began to crumble. It was difficult to leave my protestant upbringing. While I wasn't exactly a fundamentalist, I never considered becoming Catholic. About 6-7 months into my Christian life, I remember studying preterism, which is a radical approach to the end times: That most of Revelation's been fulfilled, especially Christ's second coming which was said to happen in the lifetime of the apostles (Mark 8:38-9:1), within their generation (Mark 13:30), and that the high priest would live to witness it (Matt 26:64), which is exactly why Jesus was accused of blasphemy (Matt 26:65)!!! Even today in class, professor Smith went over Mark's gospel and when we went over chapter 8-9, he made a statement how Mark 9:1 clearly mean that the disciples expected the end to be LITERALLY in their lifetime!!
"Preterism: Was Jesus wrong?"
That was something I often thought as a young believer. Was aposle Paul insane by telling the Corinthians to suddenly become single (though already married??) Or single people to not marry? Or to not mourn or be happy? (1 Cor 7:26-31) Even today in class, professor Smith went over Mark's gospel and made a statement how there's all sorts of eschatological expectation throughout the entire NT. Nearly all the NT authors believed the end was really at hand (Acts 2:17, Heb 1:2, James 5:3, 1 John 2:18). And so I seriously wondered whether Christianity can stand against such a problem. Clearly, this was a major weak point that almost stirred me away from the faith: Were all the NT authors insane by thinking the end times was so close to them!? Or could it be that a mere human like me, and many others misunderstood the meaning of 'end times'?
I grew up with the typical 'end is near, get saved' Christianity that was common with my old church: they were all concerned about people being left behind. So after I gave my life over to God, the thought of the end being near really tore apart my soul. Of course I came up with all sorts of hermeneutical gymnastics (which didn't really last) to combat the preterist claims that Jesus was right by saying he'd come in the lifetime of the apostles. It was so clear to me that any argument wouldn't work, since it demands that the apostles were delusional and Jesus made a mistake--a claim that many skeptics say. Plus it would mean that I still have to obey 1 Cor 7:26-31. I remember some were telling me that apostle Paul CLEARLY made a mistake in that passage...and there were from Christians!! Which made me think, "If apostle Paul is wrong, how can I trust he wasn't some false teacher!?" Eventually, I realized that people like Bertrand Russell has at least one legitimate reason to reject Christianity: Jesus said a bunch of things that would happen within his generation, which didn't happen. Yet, as I began studying the preterist doctrines, I came to realize it harmonizes all odd texts of the NT and refutes the notion of Jesus as false prophet.
The idea that prophetic language wasn't taken literally opened my eyes: Isaiah 13:10 was a prophetic statement that Jesus seems to quote. Yet Isaiah 13 was fulfilled in the 539 BC. HUH?!?!? And then there's more apocalyptic lingo that appears in God's coming to Edom in 703BC (Isa 34:3-5), God's coming to Egypt in 572BC (Eze 32:7-11), God's coming to Nineveh in 612BC (Nahum 1). Such weird statements....And then there's Psalm 18:7-15. Verses 14-15 sound like Greek mythology, which clearly sounds like apocalyptic language that appears in Revelation. Yet, King David was describing God's hand in delivering him from his enemies and Saul. HUH!?!? Then it began to make sense that Matthew 24:29 was a Jewish idiom. Clearly 2000 years ago, the Jews had their set of lingo which probably doesn't always make sense to the modern reader. One example is Exodus 19:4, which didn't happen literally. And I'm some smart@$$ skeptic would say, "Hey that contradicts Moses leading the people out of Egypt!" Clearly, on "eagles' wings" was not meant literally. Even now if I were to look outside and say, "It's raining cats and dogs", someone 2000 years in the future might think, "WHAT IN THE WORLD!?!?" ;) And so this is the interpretive key to understanding Revelation: The context of the Old Testament.
And this is where my desire to study theology instantly grew. I began to be like the Bereans (cf. Acts 17:11) and constantly check scriptures to see if what I'm told is true. I'd always consider a passage in light of passages that speak of the same thing: fortunately, this improved my reading comprehension skills, and so I now enjoy reading novels since biblical hermeneutics improved my ability to make connections :)
I was shocked to discover that evildoers would exist even in the age to come (Rev 22:15), not to mention that pain is heavily implied in Rev 22:2!! Rev 21:4 looked like a clear contradiction that troubled me until, I realized Lam 2:11 (or the entire book for that matter) is a reference to breaking the covenant. Click here for a commentary I did on Rev 21:1-4. Additionally, the preterist answer about the whore of babylon as old covenant Jerusalem made so much sense. Click here for more info on that. And so I was convinced that the preterist interpretation is right, or at least primarily correct. The strong emphasis on the passing of one covenant as well as the establishment of the new covenant made so much sense in light of the preterist interpretation:
Preterism gave way for my understanding Catholicism
The more I studied preterism, I somehow found out about Scott Hahn, who's both a preterist and Catholic. So this is where my inquiry into Catholicism began. I found out he was a former presbyterian, which made me think: WHAT IN THE WORLD!?!? SOME GUY ACTUALLY LEFT PRESBYTERIANISM TO BECOME CATHOLIC!?!?
I found out that he would've been a full preterist had it not been for the creeds, and so I began to wonder why he became Catholic. Also, for anyone to become a preterist, one cannot simply believe what's told, like most 'catholics', but rather one has to seriously study the preterist teachings. It's impossible for anyone to accept the preterist teachings unless one goes about learning about it. It's just too controversial for Christians to simply believe that a good chunk (if not all) of Revelation's been fulfilled. So I figured, if Hahn is a preterist, the he must've SERIOUSLY studied enough to know about Catholicism. And so I would've never considered reading anything by anyone else (since I was so narrow minded into thinking that Catholics don't study the Bible).
Immediately, I picked up all his books, and began asking questions. I bought even more books and slowly realized the beauty of the Church. And his book, The Lamb's Supper was a great introduction to the Mass from a preterist perspective. Incidently, if I'm living in the age to come, then there's some blessings that I can experience, yet I wasn't sure what applies today. One thing for sure, one of Christ's purposes for the second coming was for bringing salvation (Heb 9:27, 1 Pet 1:5). And this made so much sense out of the Catholic view of salvation as a lifelong process. As a Catholic preterist, the principle of remaining in Christ still applies. One verse that caught my eye was Rev 14:13 "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on." But even deeper than that, Hahn's book basically spelled out the reality of the Eucharist, since it's the wedding supper of the lamb (Rev 19:9). The Greek word for 'coming' (as in second coming) is 'parousia' which also means 'presence'. The significance is that if Revelation is (at least in part) a depiction of Mass, then His presence would be made manifest in the end of the book of Revelation, just as the Eucharist is at the end of Mass. Hahn's understanding of preterism and Catholicism made so much sense to me: One of the greatest New Covenant realities I can experience IS THE EUCHARIST!!
I think this was about a year ago when I realized this truth. Eventually I accepted all the other teachings of the Church (7 sacraments, Communion of the Saints, Mary, purgatory, etc). I never really had a problem with papacy, and so I embraced Catholicism, yet I was afraid of what it would mean to become Catholic. It's one thing for me to be a Christian, it's a whole new dimension to be a Catholic. After enough prayer, and study, I couldn't deny it any longer: I was literally drawn to the Church. The more I'd ignore the Church, the stronger it would eventually come back with a vengeance. There was no denying it.
So my theological journey went from Fundamentalist (before I was a serious Christian) -> Reformed Charismatic -> Reformed Charismatic Preterist -> Charismatic Catholic Preterist
LOL I guess all these labels are a bit weird, but still, it's the best way to describe what I believe in terms of theology and how I 'practice' my Christianity. I guess the one thing I retained after becoming Christian was a strong emphasis on the gifts of the Holy Spirit. There's absolutely no way to get around it: It was the Holy Spirit that changed my heart, that convicted me of the need for grace as well as the ability to understand preterism in it's glory in conjunction with the Catholic Church. I owe a lot of everything I have to the Holy Spirit. Luke 12:10 suggests the Holy Spirit has primacy over even the Son! I don't know if that's right, but there seems to be little or not emphasis on the Spirit of God, yet the Spirit of God raised Jesus! The same spirit empowered Christ, and it's the Spirit that brings life (2 Cor 3:6)!! There's not enough emphasis on the Holy Spirit...
And so, theologically speaking, this is where I am right now. Perhaps a few years later I'll come across other completely different teachings
My concern for persecuted brethren
Over the years, my interest in persecuted Christians grew primarily through Phil Kim's influence and KCF. Through KCF, I met many brothers and sisters who were all interested in missionary work in China. Phil also subscribed to Voice of the Martyrs, which opened my eyes to persecution to China and N. Korea! This is where the floodgates opened up. I had no idea that persecution was a reality in N. Korea. I was completely oblivious to N. Korea. And eventually I read Soon Ok Lee's book. I also read the 70+ page thesis that on NK Missions. Immediately, my interest in N. Korea grew immensely. And now my concern for the persecuted (particularly Catholics in China and N. Korean refugees) is written all over my heart. I don't know if I can ever see myself as a Christian and NOT be concerned about them. N. Koreans are my own blood. Persecuted Catholics in China share in the same Eucharist with every other Catholic, while I still don't know what that's like, it'll be more of a reality once I turn Catholic.
I think I may've mentioned this before, but one of my dreams is to celebrate the Mass in N. Korea whenever it opens up. I get the feeling my ministry will be primarily geared towards N. Korean refugees than persecuted Catholics in China, since I have no contact with persecuted Catholics. Whereas, it's not too difficult for me to get in contact with Korean Christians helping out N. Korean refugees in hiding.
Spiritual Growth
As I look back at my past years, I've noticed I've grown quite a lot. While I still freak out every now and then, I freak out CONSIDERABLY less. I also find myself getting things done. Unfortunately, my devotions certainly need some improvement (especially when I'm busy with school work), but I find myself more organized before. I also notice how I freak out less when it comes to discussing some controversial theological things. In fact, I realized that I tend to mention these things only when I feel 'comfortable' or as comfortable as possible...which is like saying, "I'll only spread the gospel when I feel it's safe", quite a poor excuse. While I don't exactly enjoy getting into theological arguments, I realize that what I've learned about Catholicism is absolutely incredible, that I HAVE to share it with others around me. It doesn't make sense for me to 'hog' all my knowledge to myself and pretend that I don't know about it. It's like eating icecream away from my friends, so that I don't have to share, yet there's PLENTY of ice cream!! LOL
Silly analogy, but that's what it really comes down to: The things the Church teaches is really incredible stuff! And naturally, the thing to do is share that with others. The hard part is sharing these incredible thoughts without making them sound boring. So, many have the impression that I'm psycho, or I'm trying to stir up some weird debate, when in reality, I'm simply desiring to share some knowledge. I was always a deep thinker, so I'd spend lots of time dwelling on a particular passage in scripture. And that's always something on my mind in terms of theology...lately I've been thinking about the theology of suffering, and charismatic theology, since Mark focuses on both :) But anyway, I'm beginning to see which way I'm heading.
I could be completely off, but with my knowledge of theology, I might end up going to seminary, or at least it'd be great to lead a bible study of some sort. There's all sorts of other things still on my mind, like helping persecuted Christians. I'll definitely serve in N.E. China. :)
Girls
Of course, I had to mention something about girls. I occassionally still act silly around some. It's more or less an involuntary reaction. Sometimes I'd be talk'n to some random girl and I'd have to do whatever I can to clear my throat.. lol Doesn't happen as often as before, but it happens every now and then. Many times I just ignore it now. Some people don't even notice. But I noticed how it's so easy for me to give my heart away to some random pretty girl. It's like the typical mouse trap: The bait is right there...all I have to do is....reach over.....and..........*SNAP*....suddenly things aren't the same anymore. In a sense, I'd be tempted to simply take a girl out to dinner, and when I do, I notice how I'd be thinking about the girl for hours...sometimes even days!! Big mistake. I never knew what it was like to really date someone, so I had to learn the hard way. I guess it's not really considered dating, but it's something along those lines. As much as I'd like to be in a relationship with someone, it seems it won't happen soon, and on top of that, I'm actually not concerned about it. In fact I almost don't care: I'm too concerned with N. Korean refugees!
Yep...a girl still on my mind
Sometimes, I'd be a bit lonely, and it'd make me think about someone. It's not unbearable, it actually doesn't bother me much at all. But it's a bit strange because I still don't see any possibility of ever being with her, yet I still sometimes hope that something can happen. I'm repeating my old entries again... heh anyway....it's been nearly 2.5 years since I've known her, sometime during the summer I pretty much gave up on her. Actually, it was more like a process of converstion: Choosing to marry only a Catholic was difficult since it meant I wouldn't consider marrying a protestant. Then after I made that decision, I had to stick to it, and so I slowly got over her....or did I? While it's not like I have really strong feelings for her, I do think about what she's up to and such. Maybe I'm just wasting time. But she really left a strong impression on me. I once thought that she had something for me, but I wasn't really sure. Maybe she did, or still does?? I seriously wonder what she thinks of me....or more specifically, I wonder what she thinks of me turning Catholic? Well, there's no way I'll marry a non-Catholic, so I guess that almost settles it unless she's willing to turn Catholic. Yet, people like me don't exist: There's plenty stories of Catholics turning 'Christian' and rarely are there 'Christians' who turn Catholic. But maybe I'm thinking too much about this. In any case, I've nearly given up on her completely. Maybe I am wasting my time, since I haven't talked to her in ages anyway. Somehow, when it was her birthday, I forgot to say happy birthday. I guess I was too consumed with other things/girls. I wish I can go back about 5 weeks in the past and at least say happy birthday via email. But it's not like I can do that. It'd be weird to send a happy belated birthday message, that's for sure. I'm not terribly upset about it, but she's still somewhere in the back of my mind. Occassionally, I'd read her blog just to see what she's up to, and she still updates as she normally does.
I guess I make it sound like she's really important to me...well I guess she is, but I've almost ruled out the possibility of a relationship altogether, and so I don't plan to keep my hopes up. Though, it'd be good to see her again :) Ok so I'm clearly contradicting myself: My mind says one thing, while my heart says another....it's like I'm double minded....blah...but it's not really a contradiction, I'm probably just really bad at explaining myself. I know that I can get her off my mind if I wanted to and that's what I've done 95% of the time- I'm actually not thinking about her simply because I keep myself busy with all sorts of other things that are more important: God, school, planning for future work/ministry in Northeast China, etc. I actually didn't think I'd be able to keep my mind off of girls, but for the past few weeks I've actually done just that. Occassionally, I'd run into some cute girl and be attracted a bit, but I wouldn't let it get to me. After realizing the dangers, I'd simply resist the temptation: I have more important things on my mind -> God's kingdom! (Matt 6:33)
It's just every now and then, it'd be nice to see her. But then again, in the future I suspect she'll end up with someone else, and I'll end up either single or with some other girl somewhere in Asia. Regardless, God's kingdom takes precedence. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit enabled me to do just that: Seek the kingdom first over girls ;)
Ok...so it's a bit harder at the moment LOL!!
"Lord, slap me silly!!" ;)