ECT Why shouldn't I convert from Evangelical Protestant to Catholic?

[Old man]

So, then, you actually have no proof for your unsubstantiated anti-Catholic assertions. That's what I thought.

Do you really think I give a flip what you think or thought? DREAM ON OL BOY, DREAM ON!

 

[Cruciform]

Do you really think I give a flip what you think or thought? DREAM ON OL BOY, DREAM ON!

That's nice. Given that you have been completely unable to post any actual proof for your initial unsubstantiated claim about the supposed "paganization" of the Catholic faith, Post #17 stands exactly as made. And your claim is shown to be patently false.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That's nice. Given that you have been completely unable to post any actual proof for your initial unsubstantiated claim about the supposed "paganization" of the Catholic faith

Here are the words of John Henry Cardinal Newman:

"The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church" (Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 351-353)​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

We can also see that Cardinal newman admits that the church at Rome adopted the things of demon worship into their services:

"Confiding then in the power of Christianity to resist the infection of evil, and to transmute the very instruments and appendages of demon worship to an evangelical use, and feeling also that these usages had originally come from primitive revelations and from the instinct of nature, though they had been corrupted; and that they must invent what they needed, if they did not use what they found; and that they were moreover possessed of the very archetypes, of which paganism attempted the shadows; the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, to imitate, or sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace, as well as the philosophy of the educated class" (Ibid.).​

 

[Cruciform]

Here are the words of John Henry Cardinal Newman...

Yes, Cardinal Newman discusses this in the same very specific sense in which St. Augustine had centuries before:

ST. AUGUSTINE ON INCORPORATING INTO CHRISTIANITY
THAT WHICH IS GOOD IN PAGANISM

This is another historic Catholic principle that many Protestants completely misunderstand and often reject on principle. Paul used the same approach on Mars Hill in Athens---even to the extent of directly citing two pagan poets/philosophers in his discourse (Acts 17).

Consider St. Augustine’s words on the matter:

“For we ought not to refuse to learn letters because they say that Mercury discovered them; nor because they have dedicated temples to Justice and Virtue, and prefer to worship in the form of stones things that ought to have their place in the heart, ought we on that account to forsake justice and virtue. Nay, but let every good and true Christian understand that wherever truth may be found, it belongs to his Master; and while he recognizes and acknowledges the truth, even in their religious literature, let him reject the figments of superstition…” (On Christian Doctrine, ii, 28).

“Moreover, if those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said anything that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it… These, therefore, the Christian, when he separates himself in spirit from the miserable fellowship of these men, ought to take away from them, and to devote to their proper use in preaching the gospel. Their garments, also—that is, human institutions such as are adapted to that intercourse with men which is indispensable in this life—we must take and turn to a Christian use” (On Christian Doctrine, ii, 60).​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yes, Cardinal Newman discusses this in the same very specific sense in which St. Augustine had centuries before:

“Moreover, if those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said anything that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use"

Augustine must have thought that the things of demon worship were in harmony with his faith and that is why Rome adopted that specific thing into the church at Rome!

 

[Cruciform]

Augustine must have thought that the things of demon worship were in harmony with his faith and that is why Rome adopted that specific thing into the Church at Rome!

First you need to read both Augustine and Newman again, slower this time. Then you need to Google "Genetic Fallacy," since that is the particular logical fallacy in which you're engaged, and which renders your (and Old Man's) approach here entirely false.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

First you need to read both Augustine and Newman again, slower this time. Then you need to Google "Genetic Fallacy," since that is the particular logical fallacy in which you're engaged, and which renders your (and Old Man's) approach here entirely false.

I do not need to read them again. One of the ideas that Rome adopted from the pagan religions is the idea of baptismal regeneration.

But the Bible teaches that believers are saved before a drop of water ever touches them. We can see here that before anyone could be baptized with water they had to first believe:

"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Acts 8:36-37).​

All those who believe are saved and receive everlasting love before they are baptized with water:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn.3:16).​

Rome's teachings which are from pagan sources are easily shown to be false!

 

[Cruciform]

One of the ideas that Rome adopted from the pagan religions is the idea of baptismal regeneration.

Post your proof.

Also, the fact that you have engaged in the Genetic Fallacy, and that this entirely invalidates your position, is once again noted.

 

[Bright Raven]

Has he converted yet?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Post your proof.

I have already posted my proof that Rome is in error for teaching that being baptized with water is essential to salvation.

Also, the fact that you have engaged in the Genetic Fallacy, and that this entirely invalidates your position, is once again noted.[

It is also noted that you do not even attempt to prove what I said is wrong and you did not even discuss the passages I quoted from the Bible.

 

[The Barbarian]

I have already posted my proof that Rome is in error for teaching that being baptized with water is essential to salvation.

Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.

We are talking about those who have already believed the gospel. and before anyone could be baptized with water they must first believe.

And by the time they believe they are already saved and receive everlasting life:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn.3:16).​

Do you believe that?

 

[Cruciform]

I have already posted my proof that Rome is in error for teaching that being baptized with water is essential to salvation.

You have proven nothing more than the fact that your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect does not permit you to affirm the Christian doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Your "argument" amounts to nothing more than "I don't LIKE that!"

It is also noted that you do not even attempt to prove what I said is wrong and you did not even discuss the passages I quoted from the Bible.

No need, since your interpretation/application of them merely reflects your personal preference for the opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect over the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church. (See answer just above.)



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You have proven nothing more than the fact that your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect does not permit you to affirm the Christian doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

I employed the SCRIPTURES to prove what I said. And of course you just run and hide from those Scriptures.

You have no place in your heart for the truth found in the Scriptures. That is because you put more faith in what some men say about the Scriptures than you do in what the Scriptures actually say.

 

[Cruciform]

I employed the SCRIPTURES to prove what I said.

You misinterpreted/misapplied certain selected Scriptures in an attempt to support the opinion that you were taught by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

You have no place in your heart for the truth found in the Scriptures. That is because you put more faith in what some men say about the Scriptures than you do in what the Scriptures actually say.

You can go ahead and just apply all that to yourself.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You misinterpreted/misapplied certain selected Scriptures in an attempt to support the opinion that you were taught by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

Everyone on this forum will point out what they believe is in error about other people's interpretation of the meaning of verses but YOU. You just run and hide!

You evidently do not have the courage of your convictions.

You can go ahead and just apply all that to yourself.

I am the one who believes what is written here:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn.3:16).​

I believe that "whosoever" believes has everlasting life.

On the other hand you refuse to believe that. You say that "whosover" believes does not have everlasting life and will not have it until they believe and ARE BAPTIZED WITH WATER!

 

[lifeisgood]

Try again.

Try again.

Try again.

Try again.

So much, then, for the ill-informed anti-Catholic claims that Catholicism supposedly "misinterprets the Scriptures" and teaches "non-Scriptural traditions of men." Quite the opposite.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Have you never read 'The glories of Mary'?

If you have, so much, then, for the ill-informed Catholic claims that non-Catholics supposedly " misinterprets the Scriptures" and teaches "non-Scriptural traditions of men." Quite the opposite.

 

[Old man]

I employed the SCRIPTURES to prove what I said. And of course you just run and hide from those Scriptures.

You have no place in your heart for the truth found in the Scriptures. That is because you put more faith in what some men say about the Scriptures than you do in what the Scriptures actually say.

You are correct, people like that can never be reasoned with using the Scriptures, they have a man made answer for everything and the Scriptures mean very little to them.

For instance, a catholic will claim there is no question that Peter founded the RCC, ask for proof from the Bible and they ignore you and spout more non-Scriptural reasons.

They are as pre-programed androids who have not mind or thought beyond what the church has told them.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You are correct, people like that can never be reasoned with using the Scriptures, they have a man made answer for everything and the Scriptures mean very little to them.

For instance, a catholic will claim there is no question that Peter founded the RCC, ask for proof from the Bible and they ignore you and spout more non-Scriptural reasons.

They are as pre-programed androids who have not mind or thought beyond what the church has told them.

Yes, pre-programed androids is the perfect way to describe them.