Why do Protestants convert Catholics?

[JonNC]

Probably because there are less things that a Catholic would have to be convinced of to become protestant then someone from another religion and visa versa. They may also be a part of the same community where as a Christian is normally less connected to someone of another religion. I have known at least 6 Catholics who go to protestant bible studies because the surrounding Catholic community does not have a lot of good bible studies at least in this area. I want to say this is coming from them not me.

Not doubting what you are saying. I would only mention that, if the conversation of conversion comes up, your pastor has very strong responsibility, obligation, to remind these Catholics that it is at least as important to know what one is leaving behind as it is to know what one is heading toward.

Jon

 

[jjsmity]

I thought the Protestants get a lot of their members converting people from the Catholic church. Why is that? Why not convert more people from other religions? Or from a different Protestant church?

I’m not well informed in this matter so you could explain to me what is the truth.

Most protestants dont believe the roman church teaches the true gospel, so they need to be evangelized.

 

[Thorolfr]

Worse, the pope is the anti-Christ, and the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon.

That’s what my Baptist grandmother used to say. She wouldn’t even let my father play with Catholic kids when he was growing up.

 

[PolycarpMeans]

I thought the Protestants get a lot of their members converting people from the Catholic church. Why is that? Why not convert more people from other religions? Or from a different Protestant church?

I’m not well informed in this matter so you could explain to me what is the truth.

Short answer, and I promise I’m not being glib.

…Because Satan wants them to.

 

[PolycarpMeans]

I personally know two born and raised Catholics who have nothing to do with Christianity now that they’re adults. I would love for them to convert to Evangelicalism; although I suppose they would be converting from a watered down ‘only go to Church during Christmas’ Catholicism.

I see no reason to pull practicing Catholics out of the Catholic Church, and I don’t think it would be easy even if we wanted to.

Pulling a non-religious lapsed Catholic into a doctrine which is not only contrary to the Gospel as expressed in the legitimate Church, but generally condemns the true Church as evil, is nothing to celebrate.

That’s just going from the frying pan into the fire. Either way… burning is the result.

 

[Valdemar]

Again, not the teaching within my Lutheran upbringing.

Jon

OP: sorry for the topic derailment here. I won’t get into it further.

Jon: I apologize for the generic references as not every single point refers to every single group.

If any Protestant denomination differs from the evangelical tradition in general vis a vis authority, it would have to be the LCMS.

So on the issue of authority, your assessment is correct and I stand corrected as to the affirmation of the Book of Concord, etc, as you note. But on the other issue that begs the question of whether the doctrine of sola scriptura makes any sense at all which to Catholics it does not. Meaning, if you need an authority and a tradition to tell you what the Bible says {and we Catholics say you do and that is the Church} then the doctrine the Reformation and Lutherans specifically affirm as a cornerstone really means nothing at all. The authority becomes the TRADITION. So references to “sola scriptura” as a cornerstone doctrine really mean for the Lutheran “what our group says you must believe about the Bible based on our tradition”. A tradition that Catholics argue with good basis does not, incidentally, demonstrate a continuous flow back thru history all the way to the days of Christ. Now that we have access to what many in past centuries did not, the compiled words of the Fathers and the documents of the Church from Pentecost to the modern day, we can see more clearly the break in teaching and traditions that occured in the Reformation.

Indeed, what was considered Scripture and the canon thereof has for Lutherans been segregated into a two-class estate {those Lutherans who still include the deuterocanonical books in their Scriptures, like the LCMS} which is to say a group of books considered wholly canonical and those not quite so {which is not even a Biblical concept itself but is at least a far sight better than most Protestants who simply have thrown out the books they don’t like}. I know of at least one dogmatic doctrine of the LCMS that is not based on Scripture at all according to the LCMS itself, and that involves the issue of women serving at communion, a dogma held by the LCMS but not affirmed as wholly scriptural by the LCMS.

So while you are correct that the LCMS does indeed seem to have an authority, I cannot see any way that it can possibly be said to affirm sola scriptura as a doctrine when it takes a dogmatic stand on something its own documents admit is not based on Scripture and generally relies on a tradition to interpret what it claims should actually be the domain of the Bible itself.

 

[FAB]

I was an enthusiastically-uber-involved Evangelical Protestant for the first 47 years of my life before converting to Catholicism in 2004.

Many Evangelical Protestants believe that Catholics are not Christians and therefore going to hell. That’s why they try to convert them.

If a Catholic tells them, “Yes, I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior,” the Evangelical Protestant will recognize their Christianity.

And it’s true–Catholics HAVE accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior! There is no untruth in this. So I recommend that Catholics use this “salvation language” when confronted by Evangelical Protestants who are trying to convert them. It will help the Evangelical Protestant to understand that you are truly “saved.”

But if the Catholic tells them, "I have been baptized into the Church, and therefore I am a Christian,’ the Evangelical Protestant will say, “No, you aren’t. You have to make a decision to accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior.”

I’m simplifying this greatly, and I’m also speaking in generalities. Many Evangelical Protestants are much more knowledgeable and have read enough theology to know that Catholics are truly Christians. In recent years, many Evangelical Protestants have worked side by side with Catholics on various issues like pro-life activities, opposing gay marriage, helping the poor, etc., and they have come to recognize that Catholics are truly Christians.

But there are still plenty of Evangelical Protestants who are separatists and do not recognize Catholics as Christians, and believe that the Catholic Church is a cult. Many of the older Evangelical Protestant apologetic books teach that Catholicism is a cult.

So that’s why the Evangelical Protestants try to convert Catholics to Christianity.

Hope this post helps you to understand.

What I find is most sad is that Catholics who leave the church because of “have you accepted Christ as your Lord and savior” do not understand that they have every time they receive the Eucharist, our altar call.

We also do not say we are converting anyone to the Catholic faith who is already a baptized Christian. We recognize that they are already baptized into to body of Christ, we instead welcome them into the fullness of God’s message and salvation through the Word, Eucharist, sacraments and sacred tradition as given to us by the Holy Spirit.

Deacon Frank

 

[Thorolfr]

Now that we have access to what many in past centuries did not, the compiled words of the Fathers and the documents of the Church from Pentecost to the modern day, we can see more clearly the break in teaching and traditions that occured in the Reformation.

Most historians of early Christianity and many Bible scholars do not believe that any of the books ascribed to certain apostles except for some of Paul’s epistles were actually written by them. There are also many other non-canonical gospels and texts that never even made it into the Bible such as the Secret Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Thomas as well as many Gnostic texts. All of this shows that the early Christian community was made up of many different competing groups with different beliefs about who Jesus really was.

So the notion that there has been an unbroken line of documents in a monolithic Catholic Church ever since Pentecost is not supported by the historical evidence.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Worse, the pope is the anti-Christ, and the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon.

Perhaps it is time to outgrow this, for all of us.

It would seem from your response to Randy’s comment that you believe that we ALL need to outgrow this ‘thing’ about the pope being the anti-Christ and the Church being the whore of Babylon.

With all due respect, in what way, specifically and exactly, would you suggest that the Church outgrow this? After all, the Catholic Church has never considered the pope to be the anti-Christ and had never considered itself to be the whore of Babylon. As such, in this respect, the ‘outgrowing’ that is needed does not require the Church to change anything.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[cmodrmac]

we do not try to convert anyone-a number of Catholics come to our denomination on their own volition -similiar liturgy and worship

of course a number of Episcopaleans go in the other direction towards Rome-

the Anglicans and Romans have been at this dance for centuries

 

[Topper17]

Hi sd,

I thought the Protestants get a lot of their members converting people from the Catholic church. Why is that? Why not convert more people from other religions? Or from a different Protestant church?

I’m not well informed in this matter so you could explain to me what is the truth.

In regards to the trends of the conversions in both directions, the common perception is that there are more Catholics converting to Protestantism than vice versa. Alister McGrath disagrees.

“While the evidence is that some Catholic do convert to forms of Protestantism, the traffic appears to be primarily in the other direction.” “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”, 2007, Dr. Alister McGrath, (Protestant), pg. 411

I know a lot of people who have converted both to and from the Catholic Church. Almost without exception, all of the people I know who have converted TO the Catholic Church did so because they came to believe that it’s teachings are correct. Almost without exception, all of the people I know who have left the Catholic Church for one or another of the variations of Protestantism, left for other reasons. The ‘other reasons’ include things like better music, a more welcoming community, better preaching, etc., all things that have little or nothing to do with which communion is teaching God’s Absolute Truth as intended by Christ. In part, it seems to me that the people who consider doctrine to be important tend to convert TO the Catholic Church and those who don’t (and are Catholic) tend to convert FROM the Catholic Church.

In fact I was once in a small faith community that was assembled seemingly by chance after a retreat. Five of the six couples had a cradle Catholic and a convert, except one, where the husband was still officially a Presbyterian. When his Presbyterian father passed away, he too converted. None of the six of us became Catholic ‘by choice’. We all felt that our recognition of the Truth demanded that we convert.

God Bless You sd, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Because of the anti-Catholic polemics that arose out of the Reformation, many people view Catholics as unsaved. IOW, Catholics are not Christians. And to be fair, many Catholics are nominally Christian at best, so there is some truth to the stereotype.

Worse, the pope is the anti-Christ, and the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon.

Naturally, this gives some folks sufficient cause to try to save us.

Randy,
Before my earlier comment gets misconstrued, or misrepresented, what I meant by all of us was all those communions that, in one way or another, at one time or another, has used these terms in relation to the office of the papacy, or the pope himself. Other terms can be used to express our disagreements.

Jon

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I thought the Protestants get a lot of their members converting people from the Catholic church. Why is that? Why not convert more people from other religions? Or from a different Protestant church?

I’m not well informed in this matter so you could explain to me what is the truth.

Evangelicals are trying to convert folks form any religion or denomination. I have had evangelical folks try to convert me to their particular brand of Christianity, I told them that we are the first evangelicals.

Even so, no one can be converted by someone else, they have to leave of their own volition. I left the RC of my own volition not because anyone talked me into it.

The question that should be asked is what is the RCC doing to step up its game?

 

[Topper17]

Hi HH,

Evangelicals are trying to convert folks form any religion or denomination. I have had evangelical folks try to convert me to their particular brand of Christianity, I told them that we are the first evangelicals.

Even so, no one can be converted by someone else, they have to leave of their own volition. I left the RC of my own volition not because anyone talked me into it.

The question that should be asked is what is the RCC doing to step up its game?

Maybe you didn’t notice it but we HAVE ‘stepped up our game’, as you put it. In fact, a couple of years ago, we made the conscious decision to NOT elect the Anti-Christ to the office of the papacy. (It’s hard to break tradition, plus the anti-Christ was really ticked off. He thought he was a shoe-in, and was even more disagreeable than usual for a few weeks. = We also have made secret commitment to never do that again, or more realistically, not to do it for at least a few years. Believe me, it’s not exactly easy for us having the anti-Christ in the Vatican. Just the sulfur smell is bad enough.

OK HH, So how’s that for steppin up hh?

God Bless You HH, Topper

 

[Valdemar]

Most historians of early Christianity and many Bible scholars do not believe that any of the books ascribed to certain apostles except for some of Paul’s epistles were actually written by them. There are also many other non-canonical gospels and texts that never even made it into the Bible such as the Secret Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Thomas as well as many Gnostic texts. All of this shows that the early Christian community was made up of many different competing groups with different beliefs about who Jesus really was.

So the notion that there has been an unbroken line of documents in a monolithic Catholic Church ever since Pentecost is not supported by the historical evidence.

It is hard to know where to begin to dismantle this whole response.

First, the authorship of the New Testament is nothing like the case you describe here and even if authorship is questioned, is irrelevant to the fact that the canon of Scripture as we know it in the Catholic Church was established by the time of Pope Damasus and certainly under Pope Damasus. What your point there is, is murky at best, and while the scrapping and fighting about the books of the Bible existed among heretics at that time and still continues among schismatics today, it has not been a problem for the Catholic Church which, tho it does not affirm Scripture as solely authoritative, does affirm the inerrancy of a known canon, the canon that has been held by the Church since the time of Pope Damasus. I was not at any rate affirming a solid “book” of documents, rather, of teaching, which has indeed been consistent with the Catholic Church since the beginning. The Church holds that both Tradition {including oral as well as written forms} and Scripture are authoritative. What you describe as trouble is trouble for Protestants but not for the Catholic Church.

As for competing groups, that part is true. There were various groups that affirmed various teachings in defiance of the teaching of the Church,. They are commonly referred to as heretics and include Gnostics, Montanists, Nestorians, etc.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Hi HH,

Maybe you didn’t notice it but we HAVE ‘stepped up our game’, as you put it. In fact, a couple of years ago, we made the conscious decision to not elect the Anti-Christ to the office of the papacy. (It’s hard to break tradition, plus the anti-Christ was really ticked off. He thought he was a shoe-in. We also have made secret commitment to never do that again, or more realistically, not to do it for at least a few years. Believe me, it’s not exactly easy for us having the anti-Christ in the Vatican.

OK HH, So how’s that for steppin up hh?

God Bless You HH, Topper

The office of the papacy IS the antichrist, no matter who fills it. Of course, we believe that the label is completely conditional, it’s not a permanent thing.

 

[Topper17]

Hi HH,

Thanks for your response.

The office of the papacy IS the antichrist, no matter who fills it. Of course, we believe that the label is completely conditional, it’s not a permanent thing.

It must be nice to have that level of certainty. What is that certainty based on? In other words, what is it, specifically and exactly that makes you so sure that the papacy is the antichrist. Given that you are so sure, there must be an excellent reasons, reasons which could convince us Catholics. What are those reasons?

God Bless You HH, Topper

 

[Thorolfr]

As for competing groups, that part is true. There were various groups that affirmed various teachings in defiance of the teaching of the Church,. They are commonly referred to as heretics and include Gnostics, Montanists, Nestorians, etc.

And Lutherans?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,
Before my earlier comment gets misconstrued, or misrepresented, what I meant by all of us was all those communions that, in one way or another, at one time or another, has used these terms in relation to the office of the papacy, or the pope himself. Other terms can be used to express our disagreements.

Jon

I knew what you meant, but the clarification is good for those with less history than we have.

 

[Cat]

we do not try to convert anyone-a number of Catholics come to our denomination on their own volition -similiar liturgy and worship

of course a number of Episcopaleans go in the other direction towards Rome-

the Anglicans and Romans have been at this dance for centuries

I’ve seen dozens of Catholic homosexuals (men and women) move into the Anglican/Episcopalian churches because as you say, the liturgy and worship are similar. In these churches, the homosexuals are not only welcome to worship, but welcome to become involved in teaching ministries (even the pastorate), and most importantly to them, are welcome to continue practicing homosexual sex.

The Anglican/Episcopalian pastors and leaders will have to answer to God someday for this. It’s one thing to welcome sinners, but it’s another thing to affirm their sin as righteousness.

In the same way, I’ve seen many divorced Catholics become Lutheran because of similar liturgy and worship. This issue is a little more blurred. Many Evangelical Protestant denominations welcome divorced people and recognize their new marriages, but do not allow them to serve in teaching or leadership ministries, and will not recommend them for any missionary work. At least there is some accountability in the Evangelical Protestant churches for divorced people.