Why do Protestants become Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter figuredeslarmes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rand Al'Thor:
Peace be with you!

Actually, it usually works out that the ones who convert to Catholicism are the ones that know the most about it. Just look at Jimmy Akin, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Dave Armstrong, ect. They all converted from Protestantism and did so because they DID know so much! Just read one of their conversion stories and you’ll see just how much research they did!

In Christ,
Rand
Amen!! 👍
Lisa
 
40.png
figuredeslarmes:
I was wondering if you could tell me some of the major reasons why a Protestant, Evangelical, or Fundamentalist converts to the Roman Catholic Church. Thank you! 🙂
The biggest reason for me and many others is that they find out that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. After knowing that, how can someone who loves Jesus not join His Church.

If you want to talk to a lot of people who have done this, contact the Coming Home network. The CHNetwork has many people who are converts. Interestingly enough many of them are from the clergy. It seems the more you find out about His Church and pray about it and the closer you get to Jesus, the more He calls you to His Church.

Here is their contact information.
The Coming Home Network International
P.O. Box 8290, Zanesville, OH 43702
Telephone
(800) 664-5110
(740) 450-1175
Fax (740) 450-7168
Web Site: chnetwork.org/Electronic
E-mail: info@chnetwork.org

Yours in Christ.
 
This is what you originally wrote:
40.png
NiceFundamental:
John 1:11-13 “He came to his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:Which were born, born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”

I would assume our interpritations of this scripture are different. That is without a doubt. No need to argue or debate over it. You are happy with yours and I am happy with mine.

My thesaurus on my MS Word gives “receive” when you type in “accept”. Looks like open and shut case to me. Unless your thesaurus gives you “baptised as infant” when you put in the word “received”? Sorry for being kinda snitty, but the “arrogant” position I sensed - from a Catholic or a Fundamentalist - I am getting tired of. The fact of the matter is - as all these threads indicate - people have different interpretations of scripture. It is a never ending debate. The Holy Spirit has convicted me and I am comfortable with my rendering of it.
In the third sentence you use the word “arrogant” and apply it toward others and state that you are tired of it. Since then, you have demonstrated behavior that is similar to that of which you accuse others (since you are a fan of the Thesaurus, which you use to help interpret the Bible then you can use it to demonstrate applicable words).
40.png
NiceFundamental:
The Holy Spirit has convicted me and I am comfortable with my rendering of it.
I can see why you would be comfortable with YOUR interpretation since it meets your modus operandi. You claim to be happy with your interpretation so you show no willingness to actually want to hear another interpretation that is probably more in line with the truth than your self-professed knowledge. I suspect you not only subscribe to SS, but also OSAS.

From this I read a fear of authority, specifically, that you know better than others who have been before you for 2,000 years. This would mean you have a thorough understanding of the original text of the Bible as well as the colloquialisms, practices, symbolisms, prejudices, attitudes, hierarchies, etc. of those times.

And you never did answer my question about how you would know of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit without the Bible (deft little maneuver that you thought would go unnoticed). What would be your succession to Christ since the Bible did not appear until almost 400 years after Christ? Your answer that the “Bible does exist” did not answer my question. What is your realm of history to know of Christ? The Apostles?
40.png
NiceFundamental:
My interpretation has nothing to do with it. I read, I read, I pray for wisdom and guidance and the ability to discern. If I were to use my mere mortal heart, It would lead me astray.

I let the Holy Spirit convict me. Guide me. He does and it is wonderful.
And how do you actually KNOW that it is the Holy Spirit guiding you? And not your own subjective determination of what needs to be done?
40.png
NiceFundamental:
You? You may do anything you wish.
Please, in the future, do not state what you did in the opening post then turn around and say something like this because, to quote you……
40.png
NiceFundamental:
The same way, and I assesss their “fruit of the spirit”…no fruit, then I doubt they have the truth.
You say one thing and then your “fruits” show something else. You may wish to be more cautious and careful in the future.

If you are seeking the truth then Catholicism is the way to go; if you are seeking to promote your interpretation as 100% guided by the Holy Spirit, infallible, and of unquestionable authority then you may not find any takers for your “church.”

Peace.
 
MAtt. 7:21 "“Not everyone that says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven;”…“And then I will profess to them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity”
Sounds like those do not really have Jesus as their Lord either. They profess it but not so. I know our interpretations on that verse are different to. You see it as clearly defining someone not “Catholic” not baptised…I see it as someone not “Born Again”…no Holy Spirit in them.
Hi NiceFundamental,

I highlighted the above to address this statement. Two things stand out, the first is telling someone else what they believe, which is erronious.

Secondly can you tell us what the church teaches about the above? And what forms of baptism are there that the church believes and teaches?

The reason I ask is that this is a fairly broad subject and not a neat package as most fundamentalists believe it to be. Normative and non-normative.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
40.png
NiceFundamental:
My interpretation has nothing to do with it. I read, I read, I pray for wisdom and guidance and the ability to discern. If I were to use my mere mortal heart, It would lead me astray.

I let the Holy Spirit convict me. Guide me. He does and it is wonderful.

You? You may do anything you wish.
The assumption here, or presumption, is that he (or anyone else) doesn’t. Basically it’s a statement that says the Holy Spirit guides me alone and no one else (or none that I will recognize anyway).

How is it that the Holy Spirit, according to scripture, wants everyone to be as one, due to Christ’s prayer and promise in John, yet leads them into all different directions?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
40.png
Eden:
There are no early Christians who understood “born again” the way you do:
WOW, all I meant to do was a quick post. You guys really like to argue. Not me so I won’t. If anyone took what I said as “arrogant” my apologies as it was not my intnetion. When someone “asserts” they are “right”…it comes across arrogant. Do I assert I am right? I just assert that I am comfortable being lead by the Holy Spirit. How do I know I am being lead? That is a question that becomes apparent and obvious when one experiences the rebirth “the way I see it”.

As per the quote above. I find it odd, that the Catholic Church teaches that individual (as far as I am aware) cannot interpret scripture…unless their conclusion of the interpretation is that of which the church teaches.

So, you cannot discern what “Paul”(for example) “meant” in his inspired writtings, yet you can “know” what other early church christians “meant” by their/those writtings. I find that at odds with each other. If it is inspired…you cannot interprete. If it is not inspired, but still from 1900 years ago, you can interpret and understand what the original writer “meant”. Odd.

Yes, I know I will here, the church does let us interpret…as long as it is in line with church teaches. Well, that does not allow for personal interpretation at all. That is saying you either agree with it or you are wrong. Again, yet you are allowed to tell others what the other early christians “meant” in their writtings. I truly find that odd.

Yes, again, the church might have said what they meant and you are follwoing that teaching…

Like I said, I didn’t come to debate, so I won’t. I will let all you guys have at it for now until the cows come home.

I can prove you cannot know what the early church christians meant…proof is…I have been “quoted” here and conclusions have been made what I meant by it. Those conclusions were wrong. How do “I” know?..cause I said/wrote it and I can tell you it is wrong. Those early christians are not here…any written words can be made to say or interpreted to say whatever you want…because it is you doing the interpretation.

Does this hold to Bible only, well if I was confident in “my” interpretation of it it would…however I hold no sort of belief…the Holy Spirit illuminates God’s word to me.

You need not respond as I am logging off now…but I am sure you will because you guys cannot resist…you type and type and type…while many are dying and going to Hell.

Don’t stay up too late.
 
40.png
NiceFundamental:
WOW, all I meant to do was a quick post. You guys really like to argue. Not me so I won’t. If anyone took what I said as “arrogant” my apologies as it was not my intnetion. When someone “asserts” they are “right”…it comes across arrogant. Do I assert I am right? I just assert that I am comfortable being lead by the Holy Spirit. How do I know I am being lead? That is a question that becomes apparent and obvious when one experiences the rebirth “the way I see it”.

As per the quote above. I find it odd, that the Catholic Church teaches that individual (as far as I am aware) cannot interpret scripture…unless their conclusion of the interpretation is that of which the church teaches.

So, you cannot discern what “Paul”(for example) “meant” in his inspired writtings, yet you can “know” what other early church christians “meant” by their/those writtings. I find that at odds with each other. If it is inspired…you cannot interprete. If it is not inspired, but still from 1900 years ago, you can interpre and understand what the original writer “meant”. Odd.

Yes, I know I will here, the church does let us interpret…as long as it is in line with church teaches. Well, that does not allow for personal interpretation at all. That is saying you either agree with it or you are wrong. Again, yet you are allowed to tell others what the other early christians “meant” in their writtings. I truly find that odd.

Yes, again, the church might have said what they meant and you are follwoing that teaching…

Like I said, I didn’t come to debate, so I won’t. I will let all you guys have at it for now until the cows come home.

I can prove you cannot know what the early church christians meant…proof is…I have been “quoted” here and conclusions have been made what I meant by it. Thos conclusions were wrong. How do “I” know?..cause I said.wrote it and I can tell you it is wrong. Those early christians are not here…any written words cam be made to say or interpreted to say whatever you want…because it is you doing the interpretation.

Does this hold to Bible only, well if I was confident in “my” interpretation it would…however I hold no sort of belief…the Holy Spirit illuminates God’s word to me.

You need not respond as I am logging off now…but ZI am sure you will because you guys cannot resist…you type and type and type…while many are dieing and going to Hell.

Don’t stay up too late.
Peace be with you.

Then may I ask, in as pleasant and non-threatening way as possible without it being misinterpreted negatively, what was the motive, reason, rationale, and overall original purpose behind your initial post?

Thank you.

Peace.
 
40.png
NiceFundamental:
Yes, I know I will here, the church does let us interpret…as long as it is in line with church teaches. Well, that does not allow for personal interpretation at all. That is saying you either agree with it or you are wrong.
I think I understand what you are saying, and if the underlying assumptions were true you would be entirely correct; however, it is mistaken because it assumes that the Church has definitely interpreted the entire Bible, and has done so in only one way.

Facts:
(1) Very little of the Bible has been definitely interpreted by the Church
…and…
(2) The passages that are interpreted by the Church typically state that while interpretation X is a valid interpretation, the primary interpretation is Y

I’d say that’s a lot of autonomy. Do you disagree?

God Bless,
RyanL
 
40.png
NiceFundamental:
WOW, all I meant to do was a quick post. You guys really like to argue.
I am not arguing with you. I asked you if the Holy Spirit gave you the gift of infallibility.
I just assert that I am comfortable being lead by the Holy Spirit.
Again, I just want to know if the Holy Spirit has given you the gift of infallibility on matters of faith and morals or if you are capable of making errors.
As per the quote above. I find it odd, that the Catholic Church teaches that individual (as far as I am aware) cannot interpret scripture…unless their conclusion of the interpretation is that of which the church teaches.
Not everything in scripture is defined. But if a Catholic were to interpret a passage in a way that is contradictory to what the Church teaches, then the person is in error. The Church has received the “deposit of faith” from Christ and the apostles and with the protection of the Holy Spirit, it has remained unchanged for 2,000 years.
 
Early Christians were very clear on “born again” in John 3:5 referring specifically to baptism:

JUSTIN MARTYR

“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

IRENAEUS

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

TERTULLIAN

"[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’" (Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).

RECOGNITIONS OF CLEMENT

"But you will perhaps say, 'What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?’ In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: ‘Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (Recognitions of Clement 6:9 [A.D. 221]).

CYPRIAN

"[When] they receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’" (Letters 71[72]:1 [A.D. 253]).

COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE VII

“And in the Gospel our Lord Jeus Christ spoke with his divine voice, saying, ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ . . . Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ” (VII Carthage [A.D. 256]).

BASIL

“This then is what it means to be ‘born again of water and Spirit’: Just as our dying is effected in the water [Rom. 6:3, Col. 2:12-13], our living is wrought through the Spirit. In three immersions and an equal number of invocations** the great mystery of baptism** is completed in such a way that the type of death may be shown figuratively and that by the handing on of divine knowledge the souls of the baptized may be illuminated.** If, therefore, there is any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the Spirit’s presence there”** (The Holy Spirit, 15:35 [A.D. 375]).

AMBROSE

"The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in baptism (Col. 2:11-12)] so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism. . . . ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’" (Abraham 2:11:79-84 [A.D. 387]).

There are way too many quotes from early Christians commenting on John 3:5 to post here. Not one of them would recognize the modern “born again”. It meant baptism to them and it still means baptism to Catholics.
 
40.png
Eden:
Early Christians were very clear on “born again” in John 3:5 referring specifically to baptism:
Again that just goes to the point being made. We can say the early christians “were very clear”, but not the “early christians” of the Bible? All of a sudden, they are not “very clear”.
40.png
Eden:
JUSTIN MARTYR[A.D. 151]).
Could error have come along 120 years after the death of Christ? Possibly.
40.png
Eden:
TERTULLIAN “[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’” (Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).
Here, as you say it is “very clear” what is being said. Then our Church comes around and says…well but except when they are ignorant, or if they are searching, or if, or if.

Again, goes actually to prove that other poster’s point. Words can be quoted and quoted to prove anything. To me this is then alarming. Here on this forum are people smarter than me (given) that tell me these people are “very clear” then here is a quote that says “NOONE CAN OBTAIN SALVATION WITHOUT BAPTISM” but then our church goes and makes exceptions.

Sounds suspicious. As NiceFundamentalist said, yes there are going to be “explanations”, but we can explain ourselves to death. If we are going to quote people we should accept what they say. Period.
 
Cath.orProtes.?:
Again that just goes to the point being made. We can say the early christians “were very clear”, but not the “early christians” of the Bible? All of a sudden, they are not “very clear”.
The Bible supports what the early Christians said. It is with the invention of Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism in the 19th-20th centuries that we find this “born again” means the “Jesus Prayer” business.

Can you show me Jesus teaching us to say the “Jesus Prayer” in the Bible in order for us to be “born again”?
Could error have come along 120 years after the death of Christ? Possibly.
Or possibly in the 19th-20th century with the invention of the “Jesus Prayer” and “accepting Jesus as my Lord and Savior” as being the meaning behind “born again”.

If you can find a Christian in the year 120 A.D. who supports your understanding of “born again”, please present it.
Here, as you say it is “very clear” what is being said. Then our Church comes around and says…well but except when they are ignorant, or if they are searching, or if, or if.
Protestants did not exist in 120 A.D. The Church has since had to deal with their existence and what it means for their salvation. The first Protestant still had about 1400 years to be born so let’s deal with what was happening in the 2nd century in that context.
Again, goes actually to prove that other poster’s point. Words can be quoted and quoted to prove anything. To me this is then alarming. Here on this forum are people smarter than me (given) that tell me these people are “very clear” then here is a quote that says “NOONE CAN OBTAIN SALVATION WITHOUT BAPTISM” but then our church goes and makes exceptions.
Baptism by water is normative. There is also baptism by desire when water is not available (like the thief on the cross next to Christ) or blood (marytrdom).
Sounds suspicious. As NiceFundamentalist said, yes there are going to be “explanations”, but we can explain ourselves to death. If we are going to quote people we should accept what they say. Period.
I agree. It is very clear that the quotes from the early Christians refer to John 3:5 as meaning baptism and I accept that.

Also, NiceFundamentalist is claiming to have the gift of infallibility if they believe they cannot speak in error on matters of faith and morals.
 
Protestants did not exist in 120 A.D. The Church has since had to deal with their existence and what it means for their salvation. The first Protestant still had about 1400 years to be born so let’s deal with what was happening in the 2nd century in that context.
Just thought I would point out that while there was no official name as “protestant” in the early centuries they did exist i.e. those in protest, Tertullian is an one example, Marcionites, etc. They are also in the bible, the apostles in their epistles warn against them. A good example is Paul to Timothy:

**1 Tim 1:18: This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare,
19: holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith,
20: among them Hymenae’us and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

1 John 1:19: They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.

2 Pet 2:1: But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

2 Pet 3:15: And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16: speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Jud 1:8: Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones.

2 Pet 2:10: and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and wilful, they are not afraid to revile the glorious ones,**

The last 2 are kind of interesting in that it still occurs. I personally think of Mary and the saints when I read those those people who “revile glorious ones”.

There are quite a few more examples in the Apostolic epistles where this is occuring and in each instance the apostles denounce it. So protestantism isn’t new though I don’t think it retained it’s official tag until the 1500’s. Even the documents of the 1500’s from the church call it “the ancient heresy”.

Though milder in todays form than many of the ancient protesters, quite a few of them are adopting the same beliefs as those ancient sects, like Christ left his body before his body died on the cross, or his spirit was floating behind him during the crusifixion, the resurrection had already happened, the parousia wouldn’t come, Christ was a spirit or an angel and not really human, reincarnation, and on and on.

It makes me appreciate the church all the more considering the opposition it went through in the first century, Romans, ancient protesters, the Judaizers, rejection by the Jews. God kept his word and protected the church, even when this stuff resurfaced in varied forms throughout the centuries. The one common thread they all had was rebellion against the apostles.

Concupisence through pride, same as in the garden of eden.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
40.png
Nicene:
Just thought I would point out that while there was no official name as “protestant” in the early centuries they did exist i.e. those in protest, Tertullian is an one example, Marcionites, etc. They are also in the bible, the apostles in their epistles warn against them. A good example is Paul to Timothy:
True. But the groups like the Marcionites, Arians, etc. were known under the general umbrella term “heretic”. “Protesters” were not called “Protestants” until the 16th century.
 
I think it works like this:
Heretics tried to teach false doctrines from within the Catholic Church.
Protestants teach false (at least by Catholic standards) outside the Catholic Church.

Notworthy
 
I came to read what lead Protestants to become Catholics, only to find the thread title is highly misleading and very few recent posts have had anything to testimonies.

Perhaps someone could start another thread to discuss Baptism and being Born Again.
 
40.png
figuredeslarmes:
I was wondering if you could tell me some of the major reasons why a Protestant, Evangelical, or Fundamentalist converts to the Roman Catholic Church. Thank you! 🙂
I can only speak for myself, but I’ll share some of my reasons. I realized that my trust in the authority of Scripture presupposed the authority of Sacred Tradition. More specifically, I recognized that without the infallibility of the Cathoic Church, the canon of scripture (the Bible’s table of contents) was arbitrary.

I also became much more acquainted with earch Church history and found that it looked very “Catholic.” I had previously been under the impression that Catholicism started when Constantine legalized Christianity and that Christianity had been “pure” before then.

I also became persuaded through scripture and early Church practice and belief that the Lord is really present in the Eucharist and that it is not merely symbolic. A deep yearning to receive the Lord in this way grew within me.

Finally, although I had often denied the concept of an apostasy when witnessing to Mormons, I realized that as a Protestant, I really believed that an apostasy had occurred, too. I realized that this contradicted scripture and Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. I realized that it made no sense that the Church would be so lost and corrupt for 75% of its existence to this point.

I’m the only Catholic in my family, and I lost many friends when I converted. But I thank God everyday that He led me home.

petra
 
Eileen T:
I came to read what lead Protestants to become Catholics, only to find the thread title is highly misleading and very few recent posts have had anything to testimonies.

Perhaps someone could start another thread to discuss Baptism and being Born Again.
Eileen,

You’re correct, but the false interpretation of some of these things is what helped push me back toward Catholicism. I don’t think it was a Catholic who brought up baptism / born again. All I know is that I can say positively as a Catholic, I am born again.

God bless!
 
The topic of why do Protestants become Catholic got side-tracked by Protestants who remain Protestant and wanted to tell us why.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top