Skip to comments.Evangelicals Becoming Catholic, why?
Posted on 05/17/2012 4:18:46 PM PDT by Salvation
click here to read article
Prior to the establishment of Canon authorship was a serious problem. There were many, many forgeries, many attributed to the Apostles themselves and many versions of the legitimate works recompiled from memory and using the literary practices common to the first century. That is one of the driving reasons to actually produce a Bible.
The Church Councils determined the Canon, not based upon attributed authorship, but upon the fidelity of the content when compared with the Apostolic Traditions of the Church in which the ultimate authorship of the Holy Spirit and the synergistic contribution to the whole of Scripture were the key factors.
Peace be with you.
I know what the bible says about the issue...I also know that your religion teaches that you must eat the wafer to have eternal life...And I know that your religion teaches that you must eat the wafer to be in the presense of Jesus Christ...
Perhaps you are a former Protestant who never learned to let go of some biblical truths...
Your religion counts them when they want to show the world how large the Catholic population is...
Besides, once they were baptized, they were filled with the Holy Spirit and became members of the Body of Christ, according to your religion...Seems they are just as Catholic as any of you...
All the way down to your current pope...Including the next one as well...
I recognize that it is somewhat pointless speaking to some about duplicitous use of data and intellectual honesty, but don't you think it just a little bit hypocritical to do the same thing you besmirch Catholics over just because in this one case you think it might somehow prove your spiritual superiority?
On a related issue; are you first a citizen of Heaven or a citizen if the United States?
"Despite your misapprehension on what my argument was...
I understand your argument probably better than you do.
Then that renders you more accountable for your vain attempts to escape my well-substantiated conclusions, that Catholics are more liberal than evangelicals, and among other things, voted more for Obama than Mcain.
I've seen it attempted to be made by far better scholars; four legs good, two legs bad. Fallacious conclusions based upon poorly acquired polling information collected by agenda driven organizations and subsequently argued by an individual with a long record of anti-Catholic activities is cause for apprehension and distrust.
This is a classic Catholic recourse when faced with overwhelming evidence, that of rejecting the overall reliability of survey results which all show Catholics as more liberal than evangelicals, based upon the premise that they must have it in for Catholicism, while favoring evangelicals! Must be the fault of those media darlings George Bush or Sarah Palin, or those Good Christian Belles.
As for my credibility, once again, i am the one who references things for all to see, from multiple sources, and also provides details on polling criteria, and (again) am not the reactionary Roman who charged others with posting a falsified version and guilty of sloppy or dishonest scholarship only to be proven wrong and impenitent, while i am still waiting for the source for your interesting 54% Obama, 45% Mcain, and 33% none of the above Catholic vote.
The facts are clear that Obama got only two million more "Catholic" votes than McCain, with most of those coming from Catholics who do not attend Mass regularly or are otherwise in Communion with the Church.
This is a polemic which has already been exposed in 209, as the problem is that Rome counts and treats such as members in life and in their funeral, as long as they die identifying as Catholics, like as they do in response to polls.
While you may exclude them based upon your interpretation, until Rome publicly excommunicates men like Ted Kennedy or otherwise treats known offenders as as such, and effectually requires repentance (so they become the small minority which TCs are, instead of being the majority), rather than counting and treating them as members in life (and in stats) and in death, then we must also count them as members, and as representing the faith that Rome most effectually conveys, and what mostly constitutes her OTC.
Indeed, as these make up the vast majority of Catholics, then the (so-called) one true Church© of Rome is mostly full of damned souls, few of which see any real discipline. (Ted had Masses said at his own house!)
When you use the numbers for Catholics who regularly attend Mass you find the numbers tell a completely different story.
Irrelevant as per above, while (contrary to what you would expect from such a biased person) i also provide stats that make that distinction (search weekly and traditional). But such are a small minority of Catholics, and even these overall are not more conservative than their Traditional Evangelical counterparts.
So, if you are so adamant about counting lapsed and failed Catholics among the vote totals, why don't you count the votes of all of those former Catholics who have become Protestant and Evangelical in the totals as well, or would that diminish from the hateful message you are pushing.
We do count the votes of converts, as part of the denomination or faith which they identify with, but you want us to count them (Catholics who are nonpracticing because they converted) as part of the Catholic vote, which is patently as absurd as counting evangelical converts to Rome as part of the evangelical vote! Talk about contrivances.
Besides this is your tactical liberal recourse to calling those who expose your exaltation of Roman Catholicism, hateful, with self-promoting Rome being the victim. Right out of Hunter and Madsens playbook.
While you are at it why don't you disclose your specific denomination for us so that we can verify among other things the comparative conservative voting records and the history of child abuse.
Irrelevant as unlike Catholics, i am not preaching one particular supreme church to whom all must submit, but a faith that holds Scripture as supreme and defend it from there, but as for what denomination i theologically identify most with, then that would be Southern Baptists, and believe the gifts are for today (which they allow) - apparently unlike the SSPX schism - and that saving faith is one that bears fruit (which reformers preached) and endures. (Heb. 10:39)
"A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another." - John 13: 34-35
I agree with that, except love for God (which determines how to love according to the 2nd command, can can result in division), but come short in both.
Ephesus - Magensia - Tralles - Rome - Philadelphia - Smyrna - Personal letter to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna
Not so accurate... Many scholars dispute ALL of the writings attributed to Ignatius...
The quote I provided is from his letter to Smyrna, one of the uncontested letters.
Again, not so accurate...The known forgeries are pretty much copies of the original seven with lots of Catholic language added...
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?? (If you do your own homework you will benefit from it)
I hope you are not suggesting that the Holy Spirit inspired Ignatius and his Catholic forger to write what they wrote, AND for your religion to promulgate the lie even up to now...
Please, I no longer have the will to suspend disbelief and sift through another one of your tomes. Your post will remain unread by me. Exercises in flawed logic and anti-Catholic conjecture only prove that bias is alive and well and that as is most often the case the quality and quantity of an argument are inversely proportional. Besides, I have absolutely no interest is contributing to the traffic at your website in attempt to prove what is already known to be flawed.
Peace be with you.
Then you will have no problem naming and citing your "experts" and corroborating your assertions.
Peace be with you.
Ditto to your remarks. I judge a definite bias in the postings — and sensed it even before I knew of a website.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, and the instrument He used was the Catholic Church.
Peace be with you.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.