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.

[HarleyD]

Mark, as you also have asserted that the apostle Paul himself was a “pushy guy with a chip on his shoulder”, and a large “inferiority complex a mile wide,” and whose epistles likely had to be massaged

If one were to look into the life of anyone in scripture, they will see a flawed character. And that's the beauty of how God uses people, in spite of our flaws.

People who assert the flaws of Paul do so at their own folly. It reminds me of Aaron and Mirian touting the flaws of Moses.

[Salvation]

Catholic convert from Oregon coast becomes a priest (former Evangelical)

[Salvation]

Not only are evangelicals coming to the Catholic Church -- when they come, they are becoming clergy! Figure that one out!

Alex Jones: the evangelical who became a Catholic deacon

[murron]

Typical response from a Non-Catholic. It is never a waste of time to be in the presence of the Lord. We receive graces by attending Mass, whether we are free of sin or not. If they weren’t at Mass, what else would they be doing with that hour of time? Watching TV? Going to a movie? Sleeping?

BTW they also dress up in their Sunday best when attending Mass.

[daniel1212]

That is the thing. Infallible writings by fallible men. If fallible men can be limited to writing infallible Scripture by inspiration by the Holy Spirit, is it possible that the fallible steward of Christ may be able to write infallible limited declarations of Faith by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

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.

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

As the Catholic Encyclopedia explains,

Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation.

Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document.

Revelation, on the other hand, means the making known by God, supernaturally of some truth hitherto unknown, or at least not vouched for by Divine authority; whereas infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed. Hence when we say, for example, that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Secondly, even apart from direct inspiration, a person can affirm "there is a creator," but the issue is not whether one can speak infallible Truth, but that of “assured formulaic (scope and subject-based criteria) infallibility” as i often describe it, versus the standard for establishing truth.

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.

The instruments and stewards of this Holy Writ and its promises of God's presence, guidance and perpetuation (Dt. 4:31; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34, etc.) was Israel, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 9:5)

And thus they challenged the authority of this itinerant preacher of Galilee, seeing as they sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) and had the historical decent. However, while they could have claimed that their “tradition of the elders,” such as the law of Corban, was Scriptural (as i have actually seen a Catholic argue), the Lord reproved them by Scripture, and established His own authority upon Scripture and the attestation it provides for, as did the apostles. Thus the church began in dissent from those who were instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, but presumed a level of assured veracity and perpetuation by them that Scripture did not afford them.

Yet writings were established as Divine and truth was preserved, often by God raising up men from without their office, as God can raise up from stones children to continue to build His kingdom, (Mt. 3:9) and an assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM) was not and is not necessary to do so, nor it is promised, despite attempts to extrapolate this from texts under the premise that it is necessary, and on the basis of historical decent and structure according to infallible interpretation.

Now if the canon of Scripture was not closed — this being manifest in time on the same basis by which it was established, that essentially being by recognition (immediately or in time) of its Heavenly qualities and effects — then a body of teachings could be held as equal in authority.

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;

while she herself is effectively the supreme authority, as it is she who claims to alone assuredly infallibly define both what God said and through what means He said it, and thus infallibly defines herself as infallible, disallowing that she can be reproved by others from Scripture, Tradition or history, and thus this magisterium is actually the supreme authority for Catholics by which they can have assurance, even though her infallible teachings are not the very words of God as supernaturally established Scripture is.

In summation, it is from Scripture itself that we know that the apostles of the early church did speak infallibly by inspired words, though not simply in an ecumenical decision, but even in personal letters, these belonging to that class of revelation that is the assured word of God, but besides the need to meet the qualifications to be an apostles (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,17), and the lack of any successors after Judas (Acts 12:2, Matthias being in order to keep the number of the 12: Acts 1:15-33; Rv. 2:14); Scripture itself testifies than an AIM is not necessary to preserve Truth, and that Scripture, as written, was the judge of truth claims and upon which they were established. And that God has always provided and preserved His Truth and flock, not by an AIM after the manner of Rome, but often by raising up men from without the formal magisterium to correct those who presumed too much.

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.

Thank God for your consideration.

[SuziQ]

My comment was meant to be a welcoming one; he might enjoy the structure of the Mass and the Scriptures contained therein. I made no comments about the poster’s marriage situation, nor did I infer anything.

[SuziQ]

Your Pastor sounds like a wise man.

[daniel1212]

The comparison is btwn evangelicals and RC, as percentages.

• 50% of Evangelicals considered themselves Republican or leaned toward that party, 34% Democratic or leaned thereto; 9% Independents. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#

• 48% of Catholics considered themselves Democrats or leaned toward that party, 33% Republican or leaned thereto; 10% Independent. ^⁵

• 65% of Jews and 63% of Muslims considered themselves Democrats or leaned toward that party, 23% 11%, respectively, Republican or leaned thereto ^

• 88% of Evangelicals voted for Sen. McCain in 2008, compared to just 11% for Sen. Obama. 40% of Evangelicals said it was because of the candidate’s position on moral issues. Only 9% of other voters listed that as their driving reason. Other significant reasons for Evangelical voters included their candidate’s political experience (23%) and his character (15%). http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=321

• Based upon exit polling, 74 percent of Evangelicals voted for McCain in 2008, with 25 percent for Obama. (Another measure put the percentage of evangelicals at 23 percent, with 73 percent voting for McCain, 26 percent for Obama.) http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=367

• Catholics overall supported Obama over McCain by a nine-point margin (54% vs. 45%) http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=367

• 52% of white Catholics who were regular Mass-attenders voted for McCain, 47% for Obama, while non-practicing Catholics went 61% to 37% for the latter. Just 17% of Evangelicals who attended church once a week supported Obama, while 37% of white evangelicals who attended services less frequently supported him. http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-Church-Attendance-Affects-Religious-Voting-Patterns.aspx

• Only 20% of observant white evangelicals voted for Obama, based upon 2008 Pew research exit polls, with 40% of observant white Catholics joining them, along with 94% of black Protestants overall. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1697/exit-poll-election-support-among-religious-groups

• Overall, 43% of people who attended religious services once a week or more supported Obama. http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=367

• 39% U.S. Catholics are Hispanic, with 67% of Latinos voting for Obama over McCain. USCCB Committee on Hispanic Affairs. Hispanic Ministry at the Turn of the New Millennium, 1999 ^

• After 100 days in office, 66% of Catholics, including a majority of white, non-Hispanic Catholics (55%), said they approved of Obama's job performance as president. Catholics are much more supportive of the president than are white evangelical Protestants, 33% of whom approved http://people-press.org/report/509/obama-at-100-days

• As of April 9, 2011, 80 percent of Muslim Americans approved of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president, with 65 percent of Jewish Americans; 60 percent of atheists, agnostics and those of no religion; 50 percent of Catholics; 37 percent of Protestants and 25 percent of Mormons concurring. Obama’s approval overall at that time was at 45 percent. In 2008, only 7 percent of Muslim Americans said they approved of the job President Bush was doing, versus 37% of Protestant and 26% of Catholics. http://www.abudhabigallupcenter.com/File/148778/MAR_Report_ADGC_Bilingual_072011_sa_LR_web.pdf, p. 19

• 37% of Catholics were registered as Democrats in 2007, 27% Republican, and 31% as Independents. Aggregated Pew Research Surveys, 2007. http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=295#ideology

• 77 percent of Black Protestants said they vote Democratic, whether they attended weekly services or not. 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. http://www.newsweek.com/id/142538 Also of interest:

  50% of Evangelicals considered themselves Republican or leaned toward that party, 34% Democratic or leaned thereto; 9% Independents. ⁵http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#

• 48% of Catholics considered themselves Democrats or leaned toward that party, 33% Republican or leaned thereto; 10% Independent. ^

• 65% of Jews and 63% of Muslims considered themselves Democrats or leaned toward that party, 23% 11%, respectively, Republican or leaned thereto ^

• 88% of Evangelicals voted for Sen. McCain in 2008, compared to just 11% for Sen. Obama. 40% of Evangelicals said it was because of the candidate’s position on moral issues. Only 9% of other voters listed that as their driving reason. Other significant reasons for Evangelical voters included their candidate’s political experience (23%) and his character (15%). http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=321

• Based upon exit polling, 74 percent of Evangelicals voted for McCain in 2008, with 25 percent for Obama. (Another measure put the percentage of evangelicals at 23 percent, with 73 percent voting for McCain, 26 percent for Obama.) http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=367

• Catholics overall supported Obama over McCain by a nine-point margin (54% vs. 45%) http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=367

• 52% of white Catholics who were regular Mass-attenders voted for McCain, 47% for Obama, while non-practicing Catholics went 61% to 37% for the latter. Just 17% of Evangelicals who attended church once a week supported Obama, while 37% of white evangelicals who attended services less frequently supported him. http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-Church-Attendance-Affects-Religious-Voting-Patterns.aspx

• Only 20% of observant white evangelicals voted for Obama, based upon 2008 Pew research exit polls, with 40% of observant white Catholics joining them, along with 94% of black Protestants overall. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1697/exit-poll-election-support-among-religious-groups

• Overall, 43% of people who attended religious services once a week or more supported Obama. http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=367

• 39% U.S. Catholics are Hispanic, with 67% of Latinos voting for Obama over McCain. USCCB Committee on Hispanic Affairs. Hispanic Ministry at the Turn of the New Millennium, 1999 ^

• After 100 days in office, 66% of Catholics, including a majority of white, non-Hispanic Catholics (55%), said they approved of Obama's job performance as president. Catholics are much more supportive of the president than are white evangelical Protestants, 33% of whom approved http://people-press.org/report/509/obama-at-100-days

• As of April 9, 2011, 80 percent of Muslim Americans approved of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president, with 65 percent of Jewish Americans; 60 percent of atheists, agnostics and those of no religion; 50 percent of Catholics; 37 percent of Protestants and 25 percent of Mormons concurring. Obama’s approval overall at that time was at 45 percent. In 2008, only 7 percent of Muslim Americans said they approved of the job President Bush was doing, versus 37% of Protestant and 26% of Catholics. http://www.abudhabigallupcenter.com/File/148778/MAR_Report_ADGC_Bilingual_072011_sa_LR_web.pdf, p. 19

• 37% of Catholics were registered as Democrats in 2007, 27% Republican, and 31% as Independents. Aggregated Pew Research Surveys, 2007. http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=295#ideology

• 77 percent of Black Protestants said they vote Democratic, whether they attended weekly services or not. 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. http://www.newsweek.com/id/142538

[Salvation]

Your blog again?

Please state your source.

(I know you have some hidden ones — your blog source, please.)

[Salvation]

EWTN - Journey Home - 4/7/08 - Rosalind Moss - Former Jew & Evangelical Christian

[metmom]

People who assert the flaws of Paul do so at their own folly. It reminds me of Aaron and Mirian touting the flaws of Moses.

Ooops.....

[metmom]

Typical response from a Non-Catholic. It is never a waste of time to be in the presence of the Lord.

A person who is in Christ and in whom Christ is, is ALWAYS in the presence of the Lord. God isn't found only in church.

We receive graces by attending Mass, whether we are free of sin or not. If they weren’t at Mass, what else would they be doing with that hour of time? Watching TV? Going to a movie? Sleeping?

Reading the Bible. Praying. Sharing Christ with someone. Going to Bible study. Going to church services, which in non-Catholic circles often exceeds an hour at a time. Caring for the needy. Feeding the hungry. Visiting those in the hospital or prison.

BTW they also dress up in their Sunday best when attending Mass.

Not based on what I see going in and out of the local Catholic church on Sunday morning or Saturday evening. And if you think only Catholics dress up for church, you're living in a bubble.

[Natural Law]

"Ooops....."

Even Paul asserted his own flaws.

"Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me." - 2 Corinthians 12:7

[metmom]

Truth about Catholic voting patterns hurts, eh?

If you read the small print at the end of the stats, each source is cited.

Too bad.....

[metmom]

OK. What was it then?

[Salvation]

Maybe you can tell us.

[Natural Law]

"Truth about Catholic voting patterns hurts, eh?"

As President Truman said; "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." That applies doubly to this subject matter. Obama received 69.5 million votes, only 12 million from Catholics. That amounts to only 17% of his vote total and 34% of the Catholics registered to vote. I would advise you to take a couple of aspirin before you begin to asses what that says about consequences of Protestant voters in this country is.

Peace be with you.

[metmom]

I’ve never met people in such denial of reality as Catholics when it comes to admitting Catholic voting patterns.

[daniel1212]

Once again, there is nothing hidden(!) and you do not even have to searching for a bibliography as with most compilations. The source is always right after the stats or if it has just an ^ character then it belongs to the last referenced source, as explained before.

Next thing you know it will be conspiracy theories.

[Natural Law]

"I’ve never met people in such denial of reality as Catholics when it comes to admitting Catholic voting patterns."

In theological discussions there is room for opinion, not so in math. You made the inference. I merely posted an analysis of the facts that drew an obvious conclusion contrary to the position you were advancing. Just like 9/600 does not mean "almost always" 12 million out of nearly 70 million is not most and does not place blame. Look to the 58 million non-Catholic vote Obama received that "put him over the top". LOL

Peace be with you.