Evangelicals Becoming Catholic, why?

CatholicConvert.com ^ | May 10, 2011 | Steve Ray

[Salvation]

Evangelicals Becoming Catholic, why?

by Steve Ray on May 10, 2011

 

Below is an interesting YouTube video (really audio) of an Evangelical Radio show in which two Evangelicals discuss why so many Evangelical Protestants are leaving to join the Catholic Church.

The host and guest are trying to be honest in the show entitled  “Why Evangelicals are Returning to Rome.” Although towards the end of the video they are making some statements that are historically inaccurate (about Luther and the Popes); nevertheless, their questioning tries to be honest. It is interesting that they are taking note of a large exodus. I am one of those who Crossed the Tiber to Rome.

Furthermore, this was coming from a Protestant network that is decidedly anti-Catholic.  They are willing to discuss openly what has been happening for years now (the exodus of Evangelical ordained ministers to Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches).  They also mention briefly EWTN, the program Journey Home and the moderator Marcus Grodi, a convert from Evangelical Christianity. It is obvious this is all new to them since they didn’t even know how to pronounce Marcus Grodi’s name.

The moderator Ingrid Slater asked Pastor Bob DeWay; “Let’s talk about the problem; what do you think is the seed bed (this is sort of a rhetorical question; everybody knows what a mess Evangelicalism is as a whole today doctrinally speaking).  What is setting people up for this disenchantment and the willingness to look to Roman Catholicism?”

Here are some of the Problems that Bob Deway lists, though they really have no explanation since they are blind to the real problems within Protestantism, which are things that cannot be fixed. If they were fixed they would be Catholics.
(1) The Seeker Movement took the Bible out of churches.
(2) People are not steeped in solid Bible teaching (yeah, but according to whose interpretation?).
(3) Big churches that don’t preach the Bible (who decides what should be taught??).
(4) The influx of mystical practices, contemplative prayer, the labyrinths.
(5) Seminaries that are training therapeutic practitioners rather than theologians.
(6) The idea that we have to have to justify our practices and beliefs from Scripture – according to what Luther and the other reformers – which has now been overlooked.

The moderator then mentioned a book saying, “Coming Home by Fr Peter [Eastern Rite] (I am not even going to use the term father). . . He used to head up Campus Crusade here in the Midwest” Evidently he is now heading up an organization helping Evangelical ministers come into the Eastern rite Churches.  If you want to know why he made his move from Evangelical Protestantism you can listen to the video.

For years you’d hear Evangelicals boast of the fact that their churches were filled [with] ex-Catholics.  But in too many cases the Evangelical churches are just the exit ramp that eventually leaves them disillusioned and abandoning the faith altogether. Now the tide is changing.  Some Evangelicals seem to be oblivious to the fact of this large exodus of Evangelical ministers and lay people.

A year ago, Karl Keating of Catholic Answers Live said he believed there were now more Evangelicals or Fundamentalists leaving Protestantism to become Catholic than the other way around. Even Evangelicals admit that there are notable Protestants becoming Catholics but no notable Catholics becoming Protestants.

I could take exception to several of Pastor Bob’s statements and argue decisively against them, but that is not the point of my posting this video.

[daniel1212]

A wise decision, as the more you try to escape the obvious and well substantiated and sustained conclusions which i stated, and your past false allegations, them the more they become manifest.

[Natural Law]

"A wise decision..."

Wise indeed. There are some things on sidewalks I don't need to step in more than once to gain the wisdom to avoid them in the future. Some would call it a gift.

May God continue to bless you.

[murron]

Born and raised Catholic. I would never ever consider going the Protestant way because Protestants are missing so much. No, you are misinformed. You don’t have to receive the Eucharist to be in the presence of the Lord. Just being in the Church where Jesus is present on the altar in the form of the Eucharist puts us in the presence of Jesus. This is why Catholics genuflect upon entering a Catholic Church, or make the sign of the cross when walking or driving in front of a Catholic Church. Receiving the Eucharist is a whole other issue. Receiving the actual Body of Christ gives us many blessings and graces that can only be gained by those in the state of grace. To receive the Eucharist when knowingly not in the state of grace is a sacrilege. If you have issues with that or have more questions, turn to the Catechism for the answers you seek. It has a wealth of information.

[boatbums]

Now that we are on the subject of forgeries can you tell me who wrote St. Paul's Letters to the Colossians, the Ephesians, the Hebrews, the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians and the Pastoral Epistles. Does it really matter if they write the truth whose ultimate author is the Holy Spirit??

Do you guys never tire of asking the SAME questions over and over? If you want to know who wrote those epistles, here's a thought...read them!

Colossians 1:1-2
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother, To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 1:1-2
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

I Thessalonians 1:1
Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

II Thessalonians 1:1
Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ

I Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope

II Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus

Do I need to go on??? Do you actually believe that the "Pastoral" epistles and the other letters written by the hand of Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. would have been accepted AS Scripture if nobody knew who wrote them? Seriously? If anyone cares to learn about the New Testament and the evidence we have for its total reliability, please go to this link: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html

[daniel1212]

Actually, you are quite good at avoiding things, like responsibility for your false allegations, and what an arguments was about, and the conclusion of the matter, and even references for your interesting stats.

[MarkBsnr]

Short question bu this is an intriguing subject, and i hope you will allow me to elaborate somewhat on it though i am pressed for time today.

Certainly.

First, it seems you are equating the very inspired words of God with human documents which are (purported to be) protected from error,

Interesting. Would you consider, say, Jude to be the very inspired words of God?

Moses spoke and wrote inspired, infallible words of God, confirmatory of the faith of Abraham and expanding upon it, and which was established as such due the supernatural attestation given it (there could be no rational atheists in the Exodus, though that did not prevent them from talking and acting as such) and Heavenly qualities, and the Law manifestly became the standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, thus more complimentary Divine revelation was added in conflation with it.

Excodus 24:4 Moses wrote down everything the Lord said. That is the difference. We believe that the NT was inspired rather than dictated. Luke confirms as much.

However, your church does not claim inspiration — whereby a man is so moved by the Holy Spirit that what he utters or writes are the very words of God — but infallibly claims she is protected from error by the Holy Spirit whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined criteria, whereby she makes nebulous oral Tradition equal to Scripture;

Actually untrue. And by the way, how many infallible pronouncement have been made?

And thus the church began in dissent from such and according to that principle it continues as the body of Christ and salt of the earth, its authenticity being spiritual, and not by praying to the departed, or presuming (hopefully) almost all its clergy have the gift of celibacy, and waging war after the flesh, etc., and looking to Divinely uninspired men as assuredly infallible and largely preaching itself, but by holding Scripture as supreme, and effecting manifest regeneration by the preaching of the gospel of grace, testifying that it is the church of the living God, in contrast to its institutionalized counterpart, Catholic or Protestant. To the glory of God. Though it is far from perfect, may its remnant tribe increase and grow in grace, myself included.

The thesis does fail, though, if you consider that these men are inspired; how do you say that they are not - some of them, anyway, at some point. Infallibility does not suppose eternal and continuous infallibility on all things at all times. Again, how many infallible prouncements have been made? How about the selection of Scripture?

Thank God for your consideration.

I thank God every day; and I ask His blessing upon you as well. I perceive you as a sincere seeker of Him.

[Natural Law]

"Do you guys never tire of asking the SAME questions over and over?"

Have you never heard of a rhetorical question? I asked because, although there are some that doubt the authorship, I have faith to believe they were the inspired writings of St. Paul. The real question is why does anyone consider them to be a part of the Bible.

[boatbums]

I'm not claiming to be able to read other people's minds, but something tells me, if the data you are talking about were more favorable toward the viewpoints of those who are doing the most griping about what it claims to prove, you wouldn't be getting anywhere near the argument you are now. JMHO.

[Salvation]

Conversion Story - John Weidner (former Evangelical)

[boatbums]

Have you never heard of a rhetorical question? I asked because, although there are some that doubt the authorship, I have faith to believe they were the inspired writings of St. Paul. The real question is why does anyone consider them to be a part of the Bible.

Actually, I can usually pick up on what is asked "rhetorically" versus what gets asked all the time as if no answer that has ever been given is acceptable. If the "real" question is why anyone considers the books of the Bible to BE part of the Bible, I would say the answer is the same as to why the Old Testament books were considered part of the Bible. God made sure that what He said was written down, that it was reliable, that it changed lives, that what He said came to pass AS He said it would, that God's hand-selected prophets made known to God's people what He wanted them to hear and know, that God made Himself known to His people through these prophets as well as through miraculous manifestations of signs and wonders that followed them. The writings, by their very nature AS divinely-inspired, were acknowledged as the Word of God for thousands of years.

Far from God just leaving it up to a group of men to shuffle around a stack of Scripture wannabes and decide for themselves what was and was not "God's word", He directed the process, personally. The Jewish people collected the writings of Moses and the Prophets, their theologians wrote commentaries on the various books, synagogues kept copies of these books and young Hebrew boys learned the Hebrew tongue so that they could read these writings from Jehovah. So was the case with the New Testament. The Apostles and their disciples wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - God leading them in what was said - and these writings were circulated amongst the assemblies. What the disciples and Apostles taught was what Jesus taught them - these also being written down to preserve the authority and authenticity of the doctrine. The very fact that the writings were authenticated BY the Apostles made them immediately and universally accepted as Holy Scripture and they were mutually supportive of each other in doctrine. They shared a core doctrine of truth and the early church knew personally many of the writers as well as these writers knowing each other and recognizing their shared faith - almost like a "peer review". God made sure that these writings were safeguarded from error so that His people would have all they needed for doctrine, reproof, correction, so that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly furnished for all the work of God.

From http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberals-kjv-onlyists-and-inerrancy.html we learn:

Inerrancy is bound to the character of God. The scriptures declare God's desire to reveal Himself to men. Because we know God is holy, righteous and incapable of lying, we are certain we can trust any revelation from Him as being truthful and accurate throughout and in all areas.

God is the sovereign Lord of all things, and that most definitely includes His revelation. If He has the absolute authority to create everything that exists, govern nations, raise up and put down kings and their societies, then God can certainly govern the accuracy of the details recorded by the writers of scripture. Peter confirms God's sovereign hand in recording scripture when he writes, for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21).

God safeguards the transmission of His written revelation through the thousands of copies handwritten by His people, both during the time of the OT and the time of the NT. The body of textual evidence for the Bible is compiled from hundreds upon thousands of entire manuscripts, portions of books, fragments of books, translations into various languages, historical citations and so forth making it the most attested piece of ancient literature ever written.

God protected His revelation by allowing the biblical documents to literally "explode" across the ancient world at different times and in different locations through its many copies. In this way, His revelation was safeguarded from any one group gathering up the scriptures and altering the content. Within the first 300 years of the Christian Church, these copies of scriptures were so far flung there could be no organized effort to genuinely corrupt the Bible. The one side effect, however, is the presence of minor copying errors that could always be corrected.

So, to answer your question of why anyone should consider the books that are in the Bible as belonging in the Bible, I think we can credit the church, the Apostles and disciples and the power of the truth of God to speak to the heart of all those who sincerely seek Him. When I read the Bible, I know it is God speaking to me - His love letter - and that is NOT something I get from any other writings.

[Quix]

The 665th verse of the same song does get a bit . . . unattractive . . . though I guess if one is . . . in awe . . . of !!!TRADITION!!! it may moderate the unattractiveness somewhat.

[Natural Law]

"Far from God just leaving it up to a group of men to shuffle around a stack of Scripture wannabes and decide for themselves what was and was not "God's word", He directed the process, personally."

Yes, and the instrument He used was the Catholic Church.

Peace be with you.

[Salvation]

Catholic Converts - Stephen K. Ray (former Evangelical)

[boatbums]

Yes, and the instrument He used was the Catholic Church.

God used the catholic church, meaning the universal, spiritual body of Christ which included the Apostles, the disciples of Jesus and their converts who established and made up all the local churches with the common faith as described IN Holy Scripture. The church centered today in Rome does not own the copyright to the name of Christ's followers. These early believers, through the nudging of the Holy Spirit, were convicted in their hearts whenever they read the words God inspired the writers to commit to parchment and they had the authorization from the Apostles, themselves, to know they were from God.

So, contrary to the opinion some may have - and I've seen it stated the same way many times here - the Roman Catholic Church did NOT write Scripture, nor did they "decide" what was Scripture. In fact, the books of the New Testament had already been penned long before the organization that calls itself the Roman Catholic Church existed. We have the Holy Bible because God ensured that we do. Men can take very little to no credit for it. God could have raised up stones as children of Abraham, I doubt written words would stump Him.

Peace and grace to you.

[Natural Law]

Roman Catholic Church did NOT write Scripture, nor did they "decide" what was Scripture."

You first need to understand the difference between author and authority. The Bible was compiled under the authority of the Holy Spirit, but the New Testament's authors were members of the Catholic Church. It isn't important to me if you agree or not. Neither I nor the Church look to this world for affirmation or validation.

Pax et bonum.

[boatbums]

You first need to understand the difference between author and authority. The Bible was compiled under the authority of the Holy Spirit, but the New Testament's authors were members of the Catholic Church. It isn't important to me if you agree or not. Neither I nor the Church look to this world for affirmation or validation.

What makes you so sure I don't understand the difference? And, please, the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the catholic church. Maybe it is you that doesn't understand THAT difference?

Peace and salvation to you, too.

[Natural Law]

"What makes you so sure I don't understand the difference?"

Since you don't seem to understand Matthew 16 and the origins of the Catholic Church you probably won't understand the difference between author and authority.

Pax vubiscum.

[boatbums]

Since you don't seem to understand Matthew 16 and the origins of the Catholic Church you probably won't understand the difference between author and authority.

Humor me, what do I not understand about Matthew 16 and the "origins" of the Catholic Church? Now I fully understand the Lord Jesus anointing his disciples to evangelize the world and Him giving them power to accomplish this. But before he did this, he got them together and had this conversation:

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. ,

As you know, or should know there has been disagreement - even among the ECFs - whether or not it was Peter who was the "rock" Christ would establish His church upon or Peter's profession of faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is that rock upon which Christ's church, his body, would be built. It looks to me like the Roman Catholic Church has a whole lot riding upon their interpretation of who/what that rock is.

You may be surprised to know that I think Jesus was saying BOTH. (are you surprised?) We know that Peter, though he was hardly alone doing so, had a great deal to do with the body of Christ being built up over the decades before he was martyred. But, a BIG but, he NEVER sat upon a throne in Rome, he NEVER ruled over all the local churches, he NEVER accepted worship or fine clothing or lush lodgings or I even doubt he HAD a ring, much less that he expected all the faithful to kiss it in obedience.

The abilities and anointing of "binding and loosing" and the "keys of the kingdom" were given equally to those present with him. The Gospel, the good news of the Messiah, was the "key". But, if you notice, Jesus charged them right after that anointing, "Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ." (v.20). Have YOU ever wondered why?

So, to get back to your challenge that I don't understand the origins of the Catholic Church, I DO understand the origins of the universal church. Ignatius, wasn't it who called it "catholic"? What I deny is the origin that the Roman Catholic Church has proclaimed for itself, adopting the title of the One, True Church, when that really belongs to the spiritual body, a holy temple, that is one with Christ through faith in him. That SAME faith that Peter confessed and which I also confess as do all those through the ages and that is what the origin of the church REALLY is.

Have a good night.

[Salvation]

He Was an Evangelical Christian Until He Read Aquinas [Rob Evans]

[Natural Law]

"He Was an Evangelical Christian Until He Read Aquinas [Rob Evans]"

St. Thomas Aquinas is the antidote to all who believe that their own powers of reason are what leads them to Protestantism.

Peace be with you.