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

[Arsenios]

I am also beginning to consider conversion. I know very few Catholics, have never attended a mass, and am happy and satisfied in the non-denominational Evangelical church I attend. For me this journey began with a vacation in Italy last year, including a few days in Rome and visits to the Vatican and St Peter's tomb. I have always loved history, so I started reading some of the writings of the "Church Fathers" who were disciples of the apostles (Clement of Rome, Ignatius). I was surprised to find that the descriptions of the very early church sounded a whole lot like Catholicism. I think I imagined it to be more of a "Jesus movement". There are two doctrines that stand out to me from what I've been reading that seem much more in line with the Catholic faith than with Protestant theology, and these are baptism and communion. The early church really took these sacraments seriously. They believed that the bread and wine were the body and blood of The Lord, and baptism was essential to partake of communion. Then, I started re-reading the New Testament, especially the book of Acts, "in light" of what I was learning about the early church. I realized that I have read the Bible my entire Christian life through the lens of Protestant theology. This caused me to gloss over certain passages of Scripture which didn't seem to conform to what I believed, or else to interpret them "in light" of other passages. I don't know how many different Protestant denominations there are, not counting the Independent churches such as mine, but I think the differences between them are which Scriptures they emphasize and use to "enlighten" other Scriptures. We read current commentaries and inspirational books which influence how we interpret the Bible, but how many Protestants have read Ignatius? I didn't even know who he was until I went to Rome and heard how he was one of the martyrs who was thrown to the beasts. Perhaps his writings aren't read because he is revered as a Saint by the Catholic Church, so Protestants would prefer to read Charles Stanley or John mcArthur? But Ignatius was a disciple of the apostle John! He was appointed a bishop by Peter! Perhaps, he learned something from those men that will help us in our interpretation of the writings of the apostles? I still struggle with many of the teachings of the Catholic Church but have started reading some Catholic apologetics. I don't know where this will end, but if I had to guess right now I'd say I will likely eventually become Catholic. I'm praying daily for wisdom and discernment.

May God bless you in your quest, my Brother...

If you desire first and second century Christianity, you might consider the Ancient Faith of the Orthodox Church... We still live by the first 7 Ecumenical Councils... Our Patriarch is not the Vicar of God... And God is Himself the Head of His Body, the one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church... "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the Age..."

Rome was in our Holy Communion until a thousand years ago,
when She tried to take over the Body of Christ with Her Patriarch, the Pope...
She still desires to possess our Holy Communion...
And She now recognizes our Sacraments...

If you thirst for God, our wells are deep...

Arsenios

 

[User Name]

As I have noted, Rome's view is that justification is a process. At one of your "authoritative" links above (BTW, none, including Akin's claim and imprimatur): "...he enters into a process of justification and salvation requiring his free cooperation with God’s grace"

Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone, yet grace must not be resisted, either before justification (by remaining in unbelief) or after (by engaging in serious sin). Read carefully 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5, and Ephesians 5.

Second, the Bible nowhere uses the expressions "justification by faith alone" or "salvation by faith alone." The first was directly the invention of Luther; the second his by implication. Luther inserted "alone" into the German translation of Romans 3:28 to give credence to his new doctrine.​

Source: http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...e-that-faith-alone-is-necessary-for-salvation

 

[Cruciform]

As I have noted, Rome's view is that justification is a process. At one of your "authoritative" links above: "...he enters into a process of justification and salvation requiring his free cooperation with God’s grace"

Read it again, this time more slowly and in its entirety.

"We can divide up this process [justification] into a number of stages: first, there is an initial justification which occurs at conversion; second, there is a progressive justification which occurs as a person grows in righteousness; and lastly there is a final justification which occurs on the last day...

"Trent teaches that our initial justification, by which we come to and are accepted by God, is not merited by us in anyway by anything we do, whether an act of faith or works. It is intrinsically impossible (as we shall see later, in our discussion of Trent's chapter sixteen) for an unjustified person to merit justification, therefore our justification is not merited by anything we do leading up to it. This makes explicit what was taught in chapter seven: that Christ, not us, is the meritorious cause of our justification."​

In short, it all depends upon which stage or aspect of "justification" you're referring to. Therefore, your statement that "Rome's view is that justification is a process" is both incomplete and imprecise and, thus, inaccurate. Rather, the Catholic view is that Initial Justification is momentary and immediate, Progressive Justification involves a lifelong process, and Final Justification is immediate and...well, final.

Relying on Sproul's book for your understanding of Catholic belief and teaching is simply and manifestly a mistake, as you've demonstrated above. If you honestly desire to accurately comprehend Catholic soteriology, you really should make a careful and thorough study of the book recommended in Post #1499 above. That, of course, will be up to you.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Rather, the Catholic view is that Initial Justification is momentary and immediate, Progressive Justification involves a lifelong process, and Final Justification is immediate and...well, final.

We are in violent agreement...justification, per Rome, is a process that confuses sanctification with the Scripture's teachings of the judicial, one-time, act of justification. Rome's judicial view is one of "parole", in that the lifelong parolee is subject to violating the conditions of parole (the Roman Catholic treadmill of works) and thereby remanded to eternal punishment when parole is violated.

AMR

 

[Arsenios]

We are in violent agreement...justification, per Rome, is a process that confuses sanctification with the Scripture's teachings of the judicial, one-time, act of justification. Rome's judicial view is one of "parole", in that the lifelong parolee is subject to violating the conditions of parole (the Roman Catholic treadmill of works) and thereby remanded to eternal punishment when parole is violated.

AMR

If that is true, Rome is in more trouble than I thought...

The Orthodox understand justification as being made righteous, as in rectification, or righteous-ification... We see it as organic and growing across a lifetime - "From Grace to Grace" - And hence an ever and ever improvement in one's quality of Spiritual Life, and at the "expense" of ones material, worldly, and carnal life...

We do tend to scorn the judicial-pronouncement view in favor of the ontological-purification view, and this latter entails a person's efforts in repentance working in concert with God's Grace.

Righteousness means right relationship with God...

Justification, the same word as righteousness, is the establishment of a person's right relationship with God.

That relationship is the Marriage of the Lamb to His bride when He calls and she [she being your soul and mine] is keeping purity of heart in the vigilance of a repentant life and acquiring the Holy Spirit [the Oil in the Lamps of the 5 Wise Virgins] This is the Mystery of Godliness, the intimate union of God with Man by God's Grace through man's Faith in the Body of Christ, the Church... Eph 5:32

That Marriage, you see, is far, far and remote from verbal juridical proclamations... It is personal, corporate, intimate, ongoing, organic, and Living... It is the stuff of the Saints whose very shadow heals the sick...

Sanctification comes and goes, and is God the Holy Spirit, coming and going as the wind blows... But Justification is progressive, unless one turns away from the Faith of Christ, and then is regressive... And it is this that you think Rome has bought as "parole justification"... When in truth it but reflects the free will nature of human justification in this fallen life. Persevering to the end is a good and needed thing... That we SHALL BE saved...

Arsenios

 

[User Name]

justification, per Rome, is a process that confuses sanctification with the Scripture's teachings of the judicial, one-time, act of justification. Rome's judicial view is one of "parole", in that the lifelong parolee is subject to violating the conditions of parole (the Roman Catholic treadmill of works) and thereby remanded to eternal punishment when parole is violated.

Do you believe in OSAS?

 

[Cruciform]

We are in violent agreement...justification...is a process...

Rather, Progressive Justification is a process. Initial Justification is not. Please get your facts straight before presuming to comment.


Back to Post #1503.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[republicanchick]

Well, not that I have anything against Catholics as people (For I am commanded by God to love all people), however, their beliefs are highly unbiblical and wrong, my friend. For it is obvious the RCC is a false religion because they worship or bow down to idols. .htm[/url]

most of what you s ay is a crock

The only part i agree with (not that i have read the whole thing yet) is the part about amassing wealth. It does seem to me that the clergy where i currently live are into the comfortable, easy life and couldn't care less if a member of the church is suffering (doesn't have such an easy life).

The priests i have observed are spoiled.. act like prima donnas, act like we are supposed to agree w/ everything they say regardless of how... evil it is

But humans are stupid and evil. The Church Christ founded is not. There is the divine side and the human side.

I'm not going to throw Jesus out with the filthy bathwater



++++

 

[republicanchick]

I am also beginning to consider conversion. I know very few Catholics, have never attended a mass, and am happy and satisfied in the non-denominational Evangelical church I attend. For me this journey began with a vacation in Italy last year, including a few days in Rome and visits to the Vatican and St Peter's tomb. I have always loved history, so I started reading some of the writings of the "Church Fathers" who were disciples of the apostles (Clement of Rome, Ignatius). I was surprised to find that the descriptions of the very early church sounded a whole lot like Catholicism. I think I imagined it to be more of a "Jesus movement". There are two doctrines that stand out to me from what I've been reading that seem much more in line with the Catholic faith than with Protestant theology, and these are baptism and communion. The early church really took these sacraments seriously. They believed that the bread and wine were the body and blood of The Lord, and baptism was essential to partake of communion. Then, I started re-reading the New Testament, especially the book of Acts, "in light" of what I was learning about the early church. I realized that I have read the Bible my entire Christian life through the lens of Protestant theology. This caused me to gloss over certain passages of Scripture which didn't seem to conform to what I believed, or else to interpret them "in light" of other passages. I don't know how many different Protestant denominations there are, not counting the Independent churches such as mine, but I think the differences between them are which Scriptures they emphasize and use to "enlighten" other Scriptures. We read current commentaries and inspirational books which influence how we interpret the Bible, but how many Protestants have read Ignatius? I didn't even know who he was until I went to Rome and heard how he was one of the martyrs who was thrown to the beasts. Perhaps his writings aren't read because he is revered as a Saint by the Catholic Church, so Protestants would prefer to read Charles Stanley or John mcArthur? But Ignatius was a disciple of the apostle John! He was appointed a bishop by Peter! Perhaps, he learned something from those men that will help us in our interpretation of the writings of the apostles? I still struggle with many of the teachings of the Catholic Church but have started reading some Catholic apologetics. I don't know where this will end, but if I had to guess right now I'd say I will likely eventually become Catholic. I'm praying daily for wisdom and discernment.

thank you for writing this. I enjoyed it. It is refreshing, if nothing else, to hear something here that is not anticatholic. I am glad some have an open mind.

Beware, though.. there are NUMEROUS hypocrites in the Church, and i am not tlaking about mere weaknesses, but people who don't even TRY to obey God's word.. They go to mass and HEAR it but then it seems to fly out of th eir head/heart when they leave the Church... not judging, just speaking my truth based on numerous observations over many years.

But i focus on the Divine in the Church.. and try to ignore what is far from it


___

 

[VeritasEph2:8]

I'm glad to see this discussion on justification, because what could be more important than the answer to the question, "what must I do to be saved?" With so much at stake, it's one we'd better get right. Yet there are sincere, devout Christians on both sides of "once saved, always saved" (security of the believer) doctrine, and various degrees of choice within the doctrine. Some believe we have no choice whatsoever in the matter, that our eternal destiny was determined before we were born. And, there are scriptures which support that belief. (As an aside, I was a Calvinist for about a dozen years, a member of a PCA church. My questioning began when my dad, who was not a believer, died. Worse than the tragedy of losing my dad was the struggle to understand how the God I loved and worshipped could have created my father but given him no hope of salvation). Others believe that we freely choose to follow The Lord, but once the choice is made we are sealed for eternity, and nothing can undo our salvation. This seems to be the prevalent position in Protestant Evangelical churches. There are however many Protestant denominations which are "Free Will", believing that we choose to become Christians and can also choose to leave The Lord. I think this may be close to the Catholic position that we must remain in a state of Grace. Certainly there are Scriptures that support and are quoted for each of these positions. Any of a number of commentaries will point us in one direction or the other. This is one of the reasons I am interested in reading the ancient writings of the church leaders from the time of the apostles. It seems to me that they, who not only read the gospels and epistles, but sat and learned at the apostles feet, may shed more light on correct interpretation of the New Testament than modern commentators or even 16th century reformers.

 

[VeritasEph2:8]

Beware, though.. there are NUMEROUS hypocrites in the Church, and i am not tlaking about mere weaknesses, but people who don't even TRY to obey God's word.. They go to mass and HEAR it but then it seems to fly out of th eir head/heart when they leave the Church... not judging, just speaking my truth based on numerous observations over many years.

But i focus on the Divine in the Church.. and try to ignore what is far from it




___

I have to admit this is something that concerns me. I am currently active in a very vibrant evangelical church. One thing I appreciate about the Evangelical churches is the focus on the salvation experience and a personal relationship with Christ. Believer's baptism, (rather than infant baptism) and the expectation of a born-again experience at a certain point in time encourages believers to examine whether or not they have made a commitment to The Lord. It seems possible that individuals who have gone through baptism, first communion and confirmation as children may assume that these rituals and good behavior, rather than a heart commitment to follow Christ, are what Christianity is all about. Of course the same danger exists in Protestant churches, and I'm sad to say that not all of my own children, who were raised in the church, are following The Lord today.

 

[patrick jane]

I'm glad to see this discussion on justification, because what could be more important than the answer to the question, "what must I do to be saved?" With so much at stake, it's one we'd better get right. Yet there are sincere, devout Christians on both sides of "once saved, always saved" (security of the believer) doctrine, and various degrees of choice within the doctrine. Some believe we have no choice whatsoever in the matter, that our eternal destiny was determined before we were born. And, there are scriptures which support that belief. (As an aside, I was a Calvinist for about a dozen years, a member of a PCA church. My questioning began when my dad, who was not a believer, died. Worse than the tragedy of losing my dad was the struggle to understand how the God I loved and worshipped could have created my father but given him no hope of salvation). Others believe that we freely choose to follow The Lord, but once the choice is made we are sealed for eternity, and nothing can undo our salvation. This seems to be the prevalent position in Protestant Evangelical churches. There are however many Protestant denominations which are "Free Will", believing that we choose to become Christians and can also choose to leave The Lord. I think this may be close to the Catholic position that we must remain in a state of Grace. Certainly there are Scriptures that support and are quoted for each of these positions. Any of a number of commentaries will point us in one direction or the other. This is one of the reasons I am interested in reading the ancient writings of the church leaders from the time of the apostles. It seems to me that they, who not only read the gospels and epistles, but sat and learned at the apostles feet, may shed more light on correct interpretation of the New Testament than modern commentators or even 16th century reformers.

or you could just read the Bible - focus on Paul's epistles

1 Corinthians 15:1-2 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV -

Colossians 1:20 KJV - Colossians 1:21 KJV - Colossians 1:22 KJV -


Colossians 1:23 KJV - Colossians 1:25 KJV - Colossians 1:26-27 KJV -

Colossians 1:28 KJV -


Ephesians 1:7-8 KJV - Ephesians 1:9-10 KJV -


Ephesians 1:13 KJV -



and so many more -

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If that is true, Rome is in more trouble than I thought...

The Orthodox understand justification as being made righteous, as in rectification, or righteous-ification... We see it as organic and growing across a lifetime - "From Grace to Grace" - And hence an ever and ever improvement in one's quality of Spiritual Life, and at the "expense" of ones material, worldly, and carnal life...

We do tend to scorn the judicial-pronouncement view in favor of the ontological-purification view, and this latter entails a person's efforts in repentance working in concert with God's Grace.

In the East, as much as in the West, the dominant church teaches salvation by means of transformation. The EO, like yourself, teach eventually there is a subsuming of that human nature of ours in something else, the expectation of theosis. This is simply not just another way of explaining our doctrine of final sanctification or glorification.

Eastern Orthodoxy (EO) does not give the legal aspect of salvation its due. EO downplays it and gives room for Gnostic philosophy to penetrate the church's categories. EO ends up with salvation as more of an attainment (a level, theosis) for our persons to arrive unto, rather than a rightly re-ordered relationship of creature to Creator.

The right relation for us means salvation, now, regardless of the pre or or post estate glory. The right relation is defined by being "in Christ," and that is fundamentally federal theology.

Contrary to EO, that ontological transference from one kind of humanity to another is not something we are waiting for, once theosis of EO dogma has occurred. Rather it is a very present reality, 2 Cor. 3:18: "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another."

For more:
http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/calvinist_on_orthodoxy.html

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Do you believe in OSAS?

No. OSAS is a view that leads to licentiousness with the false assumption that one can sin with abandon as long as one is "saved".

We Reformed hold to perseverance of the saints.

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS (The Preservation of The Saints) - "...those whom he justified he also glorified." (Rom 8:30)

Since God is the Author and Finisher of our faith, man cannot fall away from eternal salvation. Once a man has been born-again (regenerated) he cannot be unborn-again. Furthermore, the elect of God will definitely manifest evidences of their salvation by means of good works. The elect shall, by the grace of God and without exception, ultimately persevere in righteousness. The eternal security of the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is demonstrated by the persevering faith and righteousness wrought by the grace of God in His little begotten ones.

See: Isaiah 43:1-3, Jeremiah 32:40, John 3:16, John 3:36, John 5:24, John 6:35-40, John 6:47, John 6:51, John 10:27-30, John 11:25, John 14:21, John 15:1-11, John 17:12, John 17:15, Romans 8:29-30, Romans 8:35-39, Ephesians 1:5, Ephesians 1:13-14, Ephesians 2:10 God's workmanship, Ephesians 4:30, Hebrews 5:11-6:12, Philippians 1:6, Philippians 2:12-13, Philippians 3:12-15, 1 Corinthians 1:8 , 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, 2 Timothy 1:12, 2 Timothy 4:18, 1 Peter 1:3-5, 1 Peter 1:23, 1 Peter 5:10, 2 Peter 2:10, 1 John 2:19, 1 John 2:25, 1 John 3:9, 1 John 5:13, 1 John 5:18, Jude 24-25.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

This is one of the reasons I am interested in reading the ancient writings of the church leaders from the time of the apostles. It seems to me that they, who not only read the gospels and epistles, but sat and learned at the apostles feet, may shed more light on correct interpretation of the New Testament than modern commentators or even 16th century reformers.

Recommended reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Scripture-Affirming-Reformation-Scriptura/dp/1893531058/ (vol. III of three volume set)

https://reformation500.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/brandon-addison-ctc-article-20140501.pdf

AMR

 

[God's Truth]

Calvinists and Catholics trying to convert each other.

This is so sad.

God's Truth can be found, and it will not be found in a denomination.

It is found under your nose, in your heart, by reading Jesus' teachings and doing exactly as Jesus says.

 

[God's Truth]

Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

No one will get this life unless they actually do what Jesus says.

He makes his home with you if you obey him! Wow. Think about it.

 

[User Name]

OSAS is a view that leads to licentiousness with the false assumption that one can sin with abandon as long as one is "saved".

We Reformed hold to perseverance of the saints.

OK, then what do you find to disagree with in the following quote I posted earlier:

Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone, yet grace must not be resisted, either before justification (by remaining in unbelief) or after (by engaging in serious sin). Read carefully 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5, and Ephesians 5.

Second, the Bible nowhere uses the expressions "justification by faith alone" or "salvation by faith alone." The first was directly the invention of Luther; the second his by implication. Luther inserted "alone" into the German translation of Romans 3:28 to give credence to his new doctrine.​

Source: http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...e-that-faith-alone-is-necessary-for-salvation

 

[User Name]

OSAS is a view that leads to licentiousness with the false assumption that one can sin with abandon as long as one is "saved".

We Reformed hold to perseverance of the saints.

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS (The Preservation of The Saints) - "...those whom he justified he also glorified." (Rom 8:30)

Since God is the Author and Finisher of our faith, man cannot fall away from eternal salvation.

To me this looks like another version of OSAS, except this version includes predestination and perseverance in good works.

 

[meshak]

To me this looks like another version of OSAS,

Yes. You got it.