Why do Protestants become Catholic?

[Eileen_T]

Amen

I have been born again by water and the Holy Spirit.

As a revert who would have really, really liked to have discovered that the Catholic Church was NOT the One True Church, I discovered through research of Church History that the Catholic Church was IT!!!

Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling.

{i}Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.(Phil. 2:12),

 

[rciadan]

Why not always refer the source to the Bible.

If you demand on scripture as your sole authority, then you should do the research and find out just where scripture gets it authority. How do you know what books of the Bible are truly inspired? How do you know that the Bible is the inspired word of God at all? Martin Luther said it well, “We must thank the Roman Catholic Church for givng us the Holy Scriptures.”! If you accept the Bible as having any authority at all then you, by simple logic (using the mind that God gave you), accept the authority of the Church that gave the scriptures that authority!

The origianl question was about if the Catholic faith believed “all” or “everyone” are “sons of God”? I take the answer from you to be “no” and that in order to be “sons of God” one needs to be baptised. Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I cannot take credit for that (name removed by moderator)ut. Twas the Church. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1265. You also may find paragraph 977, the footnotes of which lead us to Mark 16:15, (the word and signifies that both requisites be met! Also to** Rom 6:4,** where Paul tells us that we are not risen with Christ until we are baptised. Simple logic then tells us that we are not children of God if we are not baptised. Creations, creatures, made in His image and likeness?, yes-- children?, no, not without baptism! I know what you said about books, but it is through writing (as I am now doing and as you did in this forum) that we communicate our thoughts, emotions and beliefs. If you want to know what the Church truly teaches, then be willing to read what she writes! *Even if you afterwards disagree, at least you will have gotten the truth of what it is you’re disagreeing with! *

Luke 6:46 “And why call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?”

Sounds like he is not Lord to everybody.

As to the “Lord, Lord”, and Matt 7:21; God is God even for an atheist who never acknowedges that He exist. Jesus is the Lord of all because He has the ultimate authority over all, whether they like it or ackowledge it or not.
Remember, just because they are disobedient does not make them independent. It just makes them guilty. Their salvation still depends on Jesus who is Lord of all (Acts 10:36), and it is Jesus who will pass judgement on all (1Thess 4:6) in the end.

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.

To put it simply, according to Jesus in John, chapter 3, and according to Paul in Romans 6:4, without baptism, one cannot be born again!
No, not everyone who says Lord Lord, will enter the Kingdom (those who are not baptised will not). He will say he never knew (refer to Luke 1:34 for the proper contexual understanding the this word) them because they never became one flesh with Him, which is what you do when you are baptised and become part of the body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the Church.

 

[timcooper]

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!

For me it was reading a book by Scott Hahn. In the book he dismantled “Sola Scriptura” and “Sola Fide”. He also gave convincing evidence of the real pressence of Christ in the Eucharist.

After joining the Church I was suprised by joy. I have found new depths of my spiritual life I didn’t even think was possible as a Protestant. I have been a Catholic for 3 years and have fallen deeper in love with Christ and His bride, the Catholic Church.

I strongly suggest reading Upon This Rock by Stephen Ray too.

 

[Cath.orProtes]

rciadan:

no, not everyone who says Lord Lord, will enter the Kingdom (those who are not baptised will not). He will say he never knew (refer to Luke 1:34 for the proper contexual understanding the this word) them because they never became one flesh with Him, which is what you do when you are baptised and become part of the body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the Church.

Why is our Church teachings misrepresented? What about babies? What about the ignorant? What about Muslims? Your quote, “those who are not baptised will not” referring to getting into heaven is not what our Church says. It makes exceptions.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Cath.orProtes.?:

Why is our Church teachings misrepresented? What about babies? What about the ignorant? What about Muslims? Your quote, “those who are not baptised will not” referring to getting into heaven is not what our Church says. It makes exceptions.

The only exceptions are for those with a baptism of blood or desire.

 

[rciadan]

Cath.orProtes.?:

Why is our Church teachings misrepresented? What about babies? What about the ignorant? What about Muslims? Your quote, “those who are not baptised will not” referring to getting into heaven is not what our Church says. It makes exceptions.

You are referring to exceptional circumstances. Babies for one are deemed as innocents never having committed an acrtual sin and we as Christians trust Gods’ mercy in this instance; yet,the Church teaches us to baptise our infants as soon as possible precisely because this innocent state lasts only so long.

The truly ignorant again are not capable of a mortal sin and therefore will simply pass through purgatory as they will have committed no deadly sin, as per the teachings of the Church regarding what conditions must be present for a mortal sin to have been committed.

As for Muslims and even some un-baptised (because they truly did not know better) christians,* the Church teaches that there is something known as the “baptism of desire*”, meaning that they who are truly searching for the way, the truth, and the Life, but never having the opportunity to know Jesus, are given that opportunity to know Him before they are condemned, and therefore may yet be saved.

I have not misrepresented Church teaching.

 

[TobyLue]

TLEtweety

My reason was searching for truth. I was tired of the so many different protestant views from different pastors. One pastor interpreted scripture differently than the pastor down the street. This just didn’t make sense to me anymore, because they claimed to be led by The Spirit, but had totally opposite views of the interpretation. To me, one of them had to be wrong if they were in so much contradiction to each other.

I have heard this reason before, but could you for curiosity’s sake give us one example where one pastor said one thing and another pastor down the street said something else. I’m not trying to put you in a spot. I’m just curious if just one of them had the same interpretation as the CC or close to it.

Thanks and God Bless

 

[TobyLue]

I was sure I could “find holes” in her arguments - but after years of study, fasting and praying, imploring the Lord to show me the truth, she is Catholic and I am, too!

and

And those are just a “few” reasons. I read alot of books before I decided to take the swim, so it wasn’t on a whim or because I like the “smells and bells”.

And on the other side of the coin, people that leave the CC leave it on a whim because somebody pointed to them a verse from scripture, taken out of context, and told them that the CC was wrong. Being ignorant of the teachings of the CC, they fell for that trap without even bothering to look into the matter like stated above: “but after years of study” and “I read alot of books”, etc. . Or, some left because the CC would not give in to their wishes, like wanting to get married without an annulment, they have lively music and dynamic speakers, or because of the scandal of a few, etc.

 

[TobyLue]

I do not know why books written by mere mortals are always suggested? No infallibility there. Why not always refer the source to the Bible. And then just ask them to read it, and read it, and pray and pray…

Just curious. What did the Christians of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century do when they didn’t have the bible to refer to? Also after the Canon of the bible was compiled, were there any Christian bookstores nearby where one go to and purchase a KJV so they could read it, and read it? Also after the bible was available, how many actually knew how to read? What did they have to go by? How did they know about Jesus? How did know they know whether to baptize their newborns or not? How did they have a real understanding of scripture?
Also, how did the missionaries from Europe that came to the Americas spread the word? Did they carry boat loads of KJV’s written in the Aztec and Mayan languages and gave them away freely and told the natives to read, read, and pray?
and

that is the only way the real understanding of scripture will come - from the Holy Spirit. Not from a mortally written book. Again, just my two bits.

Isn’t that the reason there are countless Protestant denominations because they read on their own and trust that their interpretation is from the Holy Spirit? Yet, as was stated in an earlier post, one reason the poster converted to the CC is because one pastor interpreted one way and another pastor down the street interpreted different and both claimedit was from the Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit confused that it gives different “truths” to different people?

 

[LegionofMary]

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 greatest reason for my conversion from a Baptist to Evangelical Non-denominational background to my entrance into the Catholic Church is simply…Faith in Jesus Christ…"Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my fesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” If Christ said it, I believe, what more can I say.

In the hearts of Jesus and Mary

 

[TobyLue]

I just assert that **I am comfortable **being lead by the Holy Spirit

Here ladies and gents is the crux of the protestant problem. “I am confortable”. If I’m not **confortable with what this church is teaching then I go to some other church, then another, then another until I find some church that is “comfortable” and then if I still dont find any comfort in any of them, then I will do my own interpretation that I am comfortable **with and claim “I am lead by the Holy Spirit.” How convenient!!

 

[deb1]

TobyLue:

TLEtweety I have heard this reason before, but could you for curiosity’s sake give us one example where one pastor said one thing and another pastor down the street said something else. I’m not trying to put you in a spot. I’m just curious if just one of them had the same interpretation as the CC or close to it.

Thanks and God Bless

Before I became Catholic I use to attend an Independent Baptist Church. My former pastor taught that baptism was important but only a symbol, he believed in OSAS but thought that once you sinned that you would be saved from committing any large sins and yet you must work on maturing as a Christian. He was an extreme KJV only person. Many of the women in the church were encouraged to wear skirts. Alcohol consumption was seen as a sin not simply discouraged.

My SIL’s church taught that getting saved meant that Christ could no longer see your sins(this was actually said during a sermon), that baptism did wash away sins(this was the only baptist church that I ever heard this in), it didn’t matter which biblical translation that you used or how you dressed.

My neighbor is also an Independent Baptist but a different church. She wears pants and drinks an occasional alcoholic drink. Alcohol is not seen as sinful but as being a poor witness to nonChristians.

 

[TrustInTheLord]

“It’s not important what church you are in. The important thing is: What family are you in?” :getholy:

Born again…Into the family of God

The key which unlocks all the promises of God is this- Jesus taught that a man must be born again. The following statements came from the lips of Jesus:

"…Except a man be born again, he cannot seek the kingdom of God" (John 3:3)
“…Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”(John 3:5).
“…Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3).
“…except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3,5)]

The New Birth is a necessity to being saved. Through the New Birth you come into the right relationship to God. The New Birth is necessary before you can claim any of the benefits of the Bible.

The New Birth is not: confirmation-church membership- water baptism-the taking of sacraments-observing religious duties- an intellectual reception of Christianity-orthodoxy of faith-going to church-saying prayers-reading the bible- being moral-being cultured or refined-doing good deeds-doing your best-nor any of the many other things some men are trusting in to save them.

Nicodemus, whom Jesus addressed concerning the New Birth, possessed most of the qualities we just listed, but Jesus said to him, " Ye must be born again"(John 3:7).

The thief on the cross, and others Jesus forgave while on earth, were saved without these things. They simply did the one necessary thing- they accepted Jesus Christ as personal Savior by repenting and turning to God with the whole heart as a little child.

No truth in all the Bible is as far reaching as the blessed fact that when we are born again into the family of God- God the Father is our Father. He cares for us! He is interested in us- each of us individually- not just as a group, or as a body or a church. He is interested in each of His children and loves each one of us with the same love.

Much is heard about the* fatherhood* of God and the brotherhood of man, but Jesus said to some very religious people,“You are of your father the devil” (John 8:44). God is the Creator of all mankind, but a man must be born again to become His child. He is God to the world, but Father only to the new creation man.

By the way this is not my words but Kenneth E. Hagin.

 

[SemperJase]

This is really for lurkers because the poster makes it clear he is unwilling to examine why he holds his beliefs besides blind faith.

NiceFundamental:

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.

Essentially, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Individuals can be wrong.

that is the only way the real understanding of scripture will come - from the Holy Spirit. Not from a mortally written book. Again, just my two bits.

You hold to sola scriptura but you have just made the case that sola scriptura is worthless. It is not a “mortally written book” even by sola scriptura standards. For sola scriptura to have any basis for truth, the book must be divinely inspired. Your statement implicitly denies it is divinely inspired. Why rely on scripture then? Why would the holy spirit lead you to truth through a fallible book?

This is exactly why I’m a catholic now. I also had been willfully ignorant about the validity of sola scriptura. I had no answer for why the holy spirit could lead my church to one interpretation when he was leading other sola scriptura believers to other interpretations. I just ignored the contradiction and happily went along confident that I was right and all the other people were misinterpreting (although I condescedingly thought they were still saved because they were trying to get it right).

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.

The question that follows is how all the resulting contradictory personal interpretations can be divinely inspired? They can’t. Why is an interpretation that comes 2000 years after the church was founded the right one? What does that mean for all those people who never knew your 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.

So you don’t believe in sola scriptura. You really believe in your own personal divine revelation. So did Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, David Koresh…

 

[NotWorthy]

**
The New Birth is not:** confirmation-church membership- water baptism-the taking of sacraments-observing religious duties- an intellectual reception of Christianity-orthodoxy of faith-going to church-saying prayers-reading the bible- being moral-being cultured or refined-doing good deeds-doing your best-nor any of the many other things some men are trusting in to save them.

Nicodemus, whom Jesus addressed concerning the New Birth, possessed most of the qualities we just listed, but Jesus said to him, " Ye must be born again"(John 3:7).

Wow, you just keep ignoring the facts, don’t you?

John 3:5 - Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit." There goes Jesus beginning with that phrase “Amen, amen, I say to you…” That’s a clue that what Jesus is about to say is Literal, as it is a court term used by Ancient Israelites in testimony.

Baptism is pretty important!!!

The Early Church knew this: Acts 2:37 - Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, "What are we to do, my brothers?" (V38.) - Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit."

When you speak of Faith in Jesus and Obedience to His Will, that’s exactly what we Catholics are doing when we preach Baptism!!!

Take Care!

Notworthy

 

[NiceFundamental]

SemperJase:

You hold to sola scriptura but you have just made the case that sola scriptura is worthless. It is not a “mortally written book” even by sola scriptura standards. For sola scriptura to have any basis for truth, the book must be divinely inspired. Your statement implicitly denies it is divinely inspired. Why rely on scripture then? Why would the holy spirit lead you to truth through a fallible book?

This was my response to a posters recommendation of a book written by a Catholic Apologist as indicated by the below quote.

rciadan:

A good book to read is Catholicism and Fundamentalism, by Karl Keating. It has a wealth of information that can be checked and verified through independent sources, such as the Scriptures and History.

This is PERFECT proof that someone (Catholic Apologists) cannot take written communication (Early Christian Writings) and know what they mean. You took my written communication, took it our of context - on purpose or not I do not know - and concluded what it meant. However erroneously. Undeniable proof.

 

[VociMike]

Cath.orProtes.?:

Could error have come along 120 years after the death of Christ? Possibly.

Yes, error can appear, but when error appears the Church points out and corrects the error. Where is the evidence, any evidence, of the Church correcting the supposed error of Justin Martyr in this case?

 

[NiceFundamental]

Eden:

Has the Holy Spirit given you the gift of infallibility?

Me, no.

However I believe and know the Holy Spirit is infallible.

 

[NiceFundamental]

Nicene:

Two things stand out, the first is telling someone else what they believe, which is erronious.

I stand corrected.

 

[NiceFundamental]

VociMike:

Yes, error can appear, but when error appears the Church points out and corrects the error. Where is the evidence, any evidence, of the Church correcting the supposed error of Justin Martyr in this case?

Could the error not have a “snow ball” effect?