Baptists & Evangelicals are leaving their Protestant Faith for the Ancient Christian Faith - why?

[Rightlydivide]

Do I understand you rightly then, that it is your view that the catholics in the catholic church who refused to follow Luther, Calvin, et al exercised a combination of free will to ignore them, and God’s soveriogn power to damn them

I have never, not once, ever, said what Christians do and do not go to hell.
And you are listing magisterial reformers. People who do not believe in religious liberty. People who believed in infant baptism, real presence in at least one case and so forth, I could care less about those men.

 

[Ag_not]

I have never, not once, ever, said what Christians do and do not go to hell.
And you are listing magisterial reformers. People who do not believe in religious liberty. People who believed in infant baptism, real presence in at least one case and so forth, I could care less about those men.

Ok but you said God is soverign, and it wasnt really about free will, so is it your view that God allows catholics to be misled - afterall, its not their free will?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Ok but you said God is soverign, and it wasnt really about free will, so is it your view that God allows catholics to be misled - afterall, its not their free will?

Big picture. God is sovereign. Misled? God is not misleading people. Is God misleading any Christian?
I reject the premise.

 

[Ag_not]

Big picture. God is sovereign. Misled? God is not misleading people. Is God misleading any Christian?
I reject the premise.

Ok so Catholics are NOT being misled then in their adherence to their faith and rome in your view?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Ok so Catholics are NOT being misled then in their adherence to their faith and rome in your view?

By God no. I am not issuing some kind of unam sanctum here…that is THEIR way of doing things.
Misled indicates intentional deception. Of course I do not think that.

 

[Ag_not]

By God no. I am not issuing some kind of unam sanctum here…that is THEIR way of doing things.
Misled indicates intentional deception. Of course I do not think that.

Ok - thanks. Its just when you said

‘‘God is in control. It is not just free will. God is sovereign.’’ and

‘‘The Reformation is part of God’s plan. If not, why did he allow his church to split?’’

the implication I took from that was that, if the reformation IS part of God’s plan, then catholics cannot be correct in their theology, can they? And if they are NOT following the word of God then catholics are damned, arent they? God said there would be ONE UNITED church, correct? and We’re not united? So if the reformation is part of Gods plan and Catholics didnt join the freight train, then they’re damned for not following Gods plan. That seems to be the logic of what youre saying still. I apolgise if Im being incredibly dumb and missing your point.

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

Ag_not,

I’d encourage you to read up on the interdenominational and interfaith relations that Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II focused on.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Ok - thanks. Its just when you said

‘‘God is in control. It is not just free will. God is sovereign.’’ and

‘‘The Reformation is part of God’s plan. If not, why did he allow his church to split?’’

the implication I took from that was that, if the reformation IS part of God’s plan, then catholics cannot be correct in their theology, can they? And if they are NOT following the word of God then catholics are damned, arent they? God said there would be ONE UNITED church, correct? and We’re not united? So if the reformation is part of Gods plan and Catholics didnt join the freight train, then they’re damned for not following Gods plan. That seems to be the logic of what youre saying still. I apolgise if Im being incredibly dumb and missing your point.

I do not believe that Catholics are correct in all of their theology. I would never say they are incorrect in all of their theology.

Jhn 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are].

This is what he says. He desires us to be one. The church has never been united, even in Revelation the churches are divergent in practice and so forth.
That is history.

 

[ncgolf]

I do not believe that Catholics are correct in all of their theology. I would never say they are incorrect in all of their theology.

Against what standard do you make this claim? Your personal opinion … what guarantee does anyone have that what you say Catholics do right is right and what Catholics do wrong is wrong. The Church claims its authority through Apostolic succession, that Christ gave the keys to Peter … up to Benedict currently. There is at least a claim to authority … you may not agree, and I know you don’t, but it’s there, people rail against it daily.

To make any rightness or wrongness claim takes some measure of authority … that what you speak is true … How can we know you have been protected and thus can speak the truth?

 

[CWBetts]

First I didn’t watch the videos, but I can explain why Evangelicals leave their churches for Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It is really quite simple: TRUTH. My priest has never once lied to me or tried to misrepresent Protestants. Never. On the other hand, every Protestant church I had ever been to has misrepresented Roman Catholicism. What people want is honesty. I am not saying that rhe Roman Catholic Church is without problems from time to time. Here are just a few of thelies I have been told by Protestant pastors:

Catholics worship Mary. (Veneration and adoration are not the same thing)
Catholics withhold the Bible from parishoners. (We hear OT, Epistles, Gospels, and Psalms at every Mass. Also the Douiy-Rheams translation PREDATES the KJV).
Catholics brutally murdered innocent Protestants during the Reformation. (There was plenty of killing to go around, and the first martyrs of the English Reformation were Bishop John Fisher and Sir Thomas More, for speaking against Henry VIII).
Cathoics hold man made tradition above Scriptures. (They are on equal footing, because Scripture cannot be rightly interpreted without the context of Tradition)

I wont get into the more lurid stuff published by Jack Chick and his ilk.

 

[Peter_J]

The Reformation is part of God’s plan. If not, why did he allow his church to split?

I suppose I can agree with that, to the same extent that you can agree that the First Vatican Council was part of God’s plan. (If not, why did he allow it to happen?)

For tens of thousands of years, there was no Christian truth. None nada. Zip.
Does that make sense? Your 1500 years is a drop in the bucket compared to how long humans have been on this planet. It is a drop in the bucket for overall existence of any kind. 1500 years…please…like that is a big deal…

Now I think you’re just being silly. Protestants treat decades as though they were centuries, and now you’re lecturing us that 1500 years is a drop in the bucket?

The NT are the words of Christ and his apostles.

According to the Church, yes.

P.S. Ralphinal was a little off when he said you guys ignore 1500 years of Church history. Actually Protestants – or at least, Evangelical and quasi-Evangelical Protestants – ignore the period from about 400 AD to the start of the reformation (about 1100 years). They do pay a bit of attention to the first 4 centuries – selective attention, that is, just enough to be convinced that there really are 27 books in the New Testament. (I guess it doesn’t occur to them to ask “Those people who decided that the NT has those 27 books, what else did those people have to say?”)

 

[Peter_J]

This is what he says. He desires us to be one. The church has never been united, even in Revelation the churches are divergent in practice and so forth.
That is history.

Just to confuse you, I’m going to agree with you here. Divisions among Christians didn’t start with the Reformation, although I would certainly say that the Reformation took divisions to a whole new level.

(I don’t really mean “just to confuse you” of course, it’s just fun to say. )

 

[ralphinal]

In a lot of ways, this highlights the issues of unity that the Christian faith faces. The only way for there to be unity is for someone to admit that their group is wrong.

Rightly,
You are correct that it is not a majority rules system. You are also correct that there have always been divisions. However, most of the divisions prior to the reformation (save one HUGE one) have been along geographic or litergical lines, not political or theological. By and large, those with different theologies were heretical. It is also problematic to say who is and is not going to hell. No one really knows.

Peter,
Yes, it is an exageration to say that Protestants ignore 1500 years of history. It would be more correct to say that most of them only see what they need ot see and ignore the rest.

 

[mark_a]

“Those Russians (Orthodox) represented a different world to us Protestants. We had rudimentary knowledge of their beliefs, which we knew were quite different from ours. We recognized that we were separated from them by deep cultural and ethnic differences. Yet we felt comfortable in their presence. Indeed, we were glad they shared our accommodations. They were Christians, like ourselves. Best of all, they were not Roman. And so, deep down, we knew they were our allies.”

From:
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9504fea1.asp

 

[Peter_J]

From:
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9504fea1.asp

Mark a,

I didn’t read the article you linked, since I already have some familiarity with Fr. Ryland (actually, I believe I’ve read that exact same article before).

Frankly, I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make by bringing him up. I mean, if you look hard enough you can find Orthodox who are radically anti-Catholic, Catholics who are radically anti-Protestant, Protestants who are radically anti-Orthodox, Orthodox who are radically anti-Protestant, Protestants who are radically anti-Catholic,

and, yes, Catholics who are radically anti-Orthodox (as per your example). That just mean that we’re human.

If we read an article by, say, Frank Schaeffer, would we conclude that “The Orthodox are anti-Catholic”?

 

[mark_a]

and, yes, Catholics who are radically anti-Orthodox (as per your example).

I’m unable to understand your point.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightly,
You are correct that it is not a majority rules system. You are also correct that there have always been divisions. However, most of the divisions prior to the reformation (save one HUGE one) have been along geographic or litergical lines, not political or theological. By and large, those with different theologies were heretical. It is also problematic to say who is and is not going to hell. No one really knows.

.

I do not know or expect that almost anyone on here will agree but here goes anyway. I do not believe that people like Irenaeus or many others were interested in presenting a fair and balanced perspective of differing groups. Take for example the Paulicians, for so long what we knew of this group was by their sworn opponents. When historian uncovered a Paulician text, the Key of Truth, all of sudden history has looked on them with a different lens. What you call heretical is based upon what people said about them. Their opponents. I do not believe they were presenting objective theological arguments.
Think about the mindset we are talking about here.
If this seems too far removed from reality, that people could so distort reality to their own perspective spend a little time now on the politicial blogs and read about Obama. One blog has him portrayed one way that is completely opposed to another blog…and this is 2008 when we have the internet and television.
What you loosely term heretical may not in fact be heretical.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I suppose I can agree with that, to the same extent that you can agree that the First Vatican Council was part of God’s plan. (If not, why did he allow it to happen?)

Now I think you’re just being silly. Protestants treat decades as though they were centuries, and now you’re lecturing us that 1500 years is a drop in the bucket?

According to the Church, yes.

P.S. Ralphinal was a little off when he said you guys ignore 1500 years of Church history. Actually Protestants – or at least, Evangelical and quasi-Evangelical Protestants – ignore the period from about 400 AD to the start of the reformation (about 1100 years). They do pay a bit of attention to the first 4 centuries – selective attention, that is, just enough to be convinced that there really are 27 books in the New Testament. (I guess it doesn’t occur to them to ask “Those people who decided that the NT has those 27 books, what else did those people have to say?”)

I used their terminology in terms of the 1500.
But yes, I do think that compared to an Earth that is 4 billion years old 1500 years is a drop in the bucket. God’s plan is God’s plan. I do think the Reformation is part of God’s plan. I do not know if you have any desire to get into the classic Aquinas v Jansenist area but try not to be too flippant my brother.
On the other hand, I also believe that many of the dissenting groups have been inaccurately portrayed by their opponents. For example, the Paulicians. If the only thing I knew about Catholicism came from Jack Chick, I wonder how balanced the picture would be.

 

[JonNC]

I

P.S. Ralphinal was a little off when he said you guys ignore 1500 years of Church history. Actually Protestants – **or at least, Evangelical and quasi-Evangelical Protestants **-- ignore the period from about 400 AD to the start of the reformation (about 1100 years). They do pay a bit of attention to the first 4 centuries – selective attention, that is, just enough to be convinced that there really are 27 books in the New Testament. (I guess it doesn’t occur to them to ask “Those people who decided that the NT has those 27 books, what else did those people have to say?”)

Thanks for the bolded qualifier.
Jon

 

[Peter_J]

I’m unable to understand your point.

So … I say to you “I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make by bringing [Fr. Ray Ryland] up”, and then you’re response to me is “I’m unable to understand your point.” Sounds like a children’s game.