Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

From Fundamentalist Baptist to Catholic – Steve Wilson’s Story
http://www.catholic-convert.com/ ^ | February 26, 2015 | Steve Wilson

Posted on 03/01/2015 4:54:44 PM PST by NKP_Vet

Archbishop Fulton Sheen once wrote: “There are not over a hundred people in the United State who hate the Roman Catholic Church; there are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church.”

I was one of those who hated because of what I wrongly believed about the Catholic Church. The reason I had these beliefs was due to being told what to believe about the Catholic Church from those who were told what to believe about the Catholic Church. No one was willing to find out what the bottom line was concerning the Catholic Church. Everything said about the Church was taken as truth while it seemed no one was delving into what the truth really was.

What about these Catholics? They worshipped Mary. They had a religion but not a relationship with Jesus Christ. They said they believed in God but really their belief couldn’t be the same, could it? The Bible says in James 2:19 KJV “Thou believest that there is one God; Thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble”.

So do Catholics have a belief such as the devils? When most Catholics are asked if they have been “born again” or “have accepted Christ as their Savior”, their main response is “I believe in God” or “I am a good person”, or “I’m Catholic”. Also, they have all these rituals, Saints, Statues and what about the Pope is he really standing in for God? Another big item, are they cannibals when they eat the bread and drink the wine during communion? Why do they leave Jesus on the cross, don’t they realize Jesus has risen from the dead?

For the rest of Steve’s story, click at link.

(Excerpt) Read more at catholic-convert.com ...


TOPICS: Apologetics; Ecumenism; Ministry/Outreach; Theology
KEYWORDS: pimpmyblog
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,261-1,263 next last
To: NorthstarMom

How many people could even read their native language then?


41 posted on 03/01/2015 7:16:31 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Why was Tyndale so passionate about bringing it to the people in their language if most of his countrymen couldn’t even read?


42 posted on 03/01/2015 7:18:50 PM PST by NorthstarMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: NorthstarMom

I know you won’t believe me, but Tyndale misled a lot of people in my opinion.


43 posted on 03/01/2015 7:20:10 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

How old is this? A google search shows that he changed denominations several years ago.

You wrote, “Welcome Home Steve.”

There’s not much more offensive to Christ than to deny that He alone is Savior. That “home” is not found in Christ, but in your particular denomination.

May Christ increase, and may Rome decrease.


44 posted on 03/01/2015 7:25:59 PM PST by Theo (May Christ be exalted above all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9thLife
Same story, different name...Here's one I like though...

And another thought is most of these denominations d o not agree to the doctrine s or ordinances they hold to.

He claims there are over 30,000 denominations...And they teach 30,000 different doctrines...What a hoot...Only a Catholic would believe this story...And what does he know of what 30,000 different churches teach??? HaHa...

45 posted on 03/01/2015 7:27:13 PM PST by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

Then what comes after 3:3?

3:5 “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

I know of no Catholic that was not baptised by water AND THE SPIRIT!

They are “born again”, as evangelicals like to call it.

CCC:

1215 This sacrament is also called “the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one “can enter the kingdom of God.”7


46 posted on 03/01/2015 7:27:23 PM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Nor pope, nor magisterium, nor worship of mary, nor indulgences, nor salvation by works, nor priests, nor celibacy of priests, nor nuns, nor office of cardinal, nor supreme pontiff, nor purgatory, nor limbo, nor venerating mary, nor venerating saints, nor mass, nor penance, etc....I can go on.

While the word Bible may not be in the Bible, the word Scripture is in there. You know Scripture...it's the writings Jesus quoted from and referred to as authoritative while rejecting tradition.

The word Trinity may not be in the Bible, but one can see the Trinity in operation through the Bible.

Yep, those public schools can be rough, but then again so can catholic schools.

47 posted on 03/01/2015 7:32:16 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Before the Bible, there was the Church. Catholics don’t need “born gain” nonsensical stuff. We have the Holy Eucharist.

That's how we know your religion is a cult...Born again is bible language...It's a bible concept...A bible truth...

As the apostle Paul was writing his portion of the bible he warned us about your religion...It was creeping in before the scriptures were even finished...

48 posted on 03/01/2015 7:32:31 PM PST by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Now he can take that job teaching evolutionary biology and cosmogony.


49 posted on 03/01/2015 7:33:00 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Throne and Altar! [In Jerusalem!!!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

I want to say this as kindly and respectfully as possible. I cannot name individuals from ages past who came afoul of the Church by reading and sharing the Scriptures with others. But it’s common knowledge that more than a few paid with their lives for doing it.

Come August I’ll have been saved for 53 years. It has been a long time since I read Fox’s Book of Martyrs, which is only one of many books detailing what happened to lay believers who were pronounced guilty of unauthorized “intrusion” into the Scriptures, where only clergy were permitted to inquire, or to express an opinion as to what a passage meant. It meant only what the clergy SAID it meant.

I will not be drawn into a spitting contest. The history is readily available for anyone who wants to look it up.

Praise Jesus!


50 posted on 03/01/2015 7:35:55 PM PST by Tucker39 (Welcome to America! Now speak English; and keep to the right....In driving, in Faith, and politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
I know of no Catholic that was not baptised by water AND THE SPIRIT!

Well there's one on this board that sure chunked the idea of needing to be born again overboard for catholics.

The words used were "catholics don't need "born again" nonsensical stuff. We have the Holy Eucharist."

Suggest you post your reply to that poster. Sounds like they may be missing something.

51 posted on 03/01/2015 7:36:39 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Tucker39
I want to say this as kindly and respectfully as possible. I cannot name individuals from ages past who came afoul of the Church by reading and sharing the Scriptures with others. But it’s common knowledge that more than a few paid with their lives for doing it.

I'm in agreement with you.

52 posted on 03/01/2015 7:37:42 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Tyndale became chaplain at the home of Sir John Walsh at Little Sodbury and tutor to his children around 1521. His opinions proved controversial to fellow clergymen, and the next year he was summoned before John Bell, the Chancellor of the Diocese of Worcester, although no formal charges were laid at the time.[16] After the harsh meeting with Bell and other church leaders, and near the end of Tyndale's time at Little Sodbury, John Foxe describes an argument with a "learned" but "blasphemous" clergyman, who had asserted to Tyndale that, "We had better be without God's laws than the Pope's." Tyndale responded: "I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spares my life, ere many years, I will cause the boy that driveth the plow to know more of the Scriptures than thou dost!"[17][18]

Tyndale left for London in 1523 to seek permission to translate the Bible into English. He requested help from Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall, a well-known classicist who had praised Erasmus after working together with him on a Greek New Testament. The bishop, however, declined to extend his patronage, telling Tyndale he had no room for him in his household.[19] Tyndale preached and studied "at his book" in London for some time, relying on the help of a cloth merchant, Humphrey Monmouth. During this time he lectured widely, including at St Dunstan-in-the-West.

The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church did not approve of some of the words and phrases introduced by Tyndale, such as "overseer", where it would have been understood as "bishop", "elder" for "priest", and "love" rather than "charity". Tyndale, citing Erasmus, contended that the Greek New Testament did not support the traditional Roman Catholic readings. More controversially, Tyndale translated the Greek "ekklesia", (literally "called out ones"[43]) as "congregation" rather than "church".[44] It has been asserted this translation choice "was a direct threat to the Church's ancient—but so Tyndale here made clear, non-scriptural—claim to be the body of Christ on earth. To change these words was to strip the Church hierarchy of its pretensions to be Christ's terrestrial representative, and to award this honour to individual worshipers who made up each congregation."[44]

Contention from Roman Catholics came not only from real or perceived errors in translation but also a fear of the erosion of their social power if Christians could read the Bible in their own language. "The Pope's dogma is bloody", Tyndale wrote in The Obedience of a Christian Man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale

53 posted on 03/01/2015 7:44:34 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

What do you mean? I admit I have only heard the pro-reformer point of view, and as latin was not the original language of scriptures anyway, I sincerely don’t see that it is wrong or dangerous for all people to know the word of God.

He gave it to us for a reason-memorization of the first five books of the Torah (Old Testament) was required of all Jewish boys by the time they were 10. He tells us in the Bible to write His words on our hearts. Clearly, the our Lord intended for His people to know and understand His word. Jesus himself often made His point by saying, “As you have read...”. He expected all people, not just the Jewish priests to have read or heard God’s word in their own language. Nehemiah read it to all the people...men, women and children...for hours. Surely they understand the language on which God’s word was being read to them.

Why would having God’s word in a language you can comprehend would be a sin. I’m not trying to be snarky, I’m sincere as I’ve tried and can’t see the problem.


54 posted on 03/01/2015 7:46:08 PM PST by NorthstarMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Campion; Tucker39

“Care to specify exactly where and when Catholics were forbidden from reading the Bible for themselves?”


II. The Middle Ages:

Owing to lack of culture among the Germanic and Romanic peoples, there was for a long time no thought of restricting access to the Bible there. Translations of Biblical books into German began only in the Carolingian period and were not originally intended for the laity. Nevertheless the people were anxious to have the divine service and the Scripture lessons read in the vernacular. John VIII in 880 permitted, after the reading of the Latin gospel, a translation into Slavonic; but Gregory VII, in a letter to Duke Vratislav of Bohemia in 1080 characterized the custom as unwise, bold, and forbidden. This was a formal prohibition, not of Bible reading in general, but of divine service in the vernacular.

With the appearance, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of the Albigenses and Waldenses, who appealed to the Bible in all their disputes with the Church, the hierarchy was furnished with a reason for shutting up the Word of God. The Synod of Toulouse in 1229 forbade the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and the New Testament except the Psalter and such other portions as are contained in the Breviary or the Hours of the Blessed Mary.

“We most strictly forbid these works in the vulgar tongue” (Harduin, Concilia, xii, 178; Mansi, Concilia, xxiii, 194). The Synod of Tarragona (1234) ordered all vernacular versions to be brought to the bishop to be burned. James I renewed thin decision of the Tarragona synod in 1276. The synod held there in 1317 under Archbishop Ximenes prohibited to Beghards, Beguines, and tertiaries of the Franciscans the possession of theological books in the vernacular (Mansi, Concilia, xxv, 627). The order of James I was renewed by later kings and confirmed by Paul II (1464-71). Ferdinand and Isabella (1474-1516) prohibited the translation of the Bible into the vernacular or the possession of such translations.

In England Wyclif’s Bible-translation caused the resolution passed by the third Synod of Oxford (1408): “No one shall henceforth of his own authority translate any text of Scripture into English; and no part of any such book or treatise composed in the time of John Wycliffe or later shall be read in public or private, under pain of excommunication” (Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vi, 984).

But Sir Thomas More states that he had himself seen old Bibles which were examined by the bishop and left in the hands of good Catholic laymen (Blunt, Reformation of the Church of England, 4th ed., London, 1878, i, 505).

In Germany, Charles IV issued in 1369 an edict to four inquisitors against the translating and the reading of Scripture in the German language. This edict was caused by the operations of Beghards and Beguines. In 1485 and 1486, Berthold, archbishop of Mainz, issued an edict against the printing of religious books in German, giving among other reasons the singular one that the German language was unadapted to convey correctly religious ideas, and therefore they would be profaned. Berthold’s edict had some influence, but could not prevent the dissemination and publication of new editions of the Bible. Leaders in the Church sometimes recommended to the laity the reading of the Bible, and the Church kept silence officially as long as these efforts were not abused.

III. The Roman Catholic Church since the Reformation:

Luther’s translation of the Bible and its propagation could not but influence the Roman Catholic Church. Humanism, through such men as Erasmus, advocated the reading of the Bible and the necessity of making it accessible by translations; but it was felt that Luther’s translation must be offset by one prepared in the interest of the Church. Such editions were Emser’s of 1527, and the Dietenberg Bible of 1534. The Church of Rome silently tolerated these translations.

1. Action by the Council of Trent.

At last the Council of Trent took the matter in hand, and in its fourth session (Apr. 18, 1546) adopted the Decretum de editione et usu librorum sacrorum, which enacted the following: “This synod ordains and decrees that henceforth sacred Scripture, and especially the aforesaid old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever on sacred matters without the name of the author; or in future to sell them, or even to possess them, unless they shall have been first examined and approved of by the ordinary.”

When the question of the translation of the Bible into the vernacular came up, Bishop Acqui of Piedmont and Cardinal Pacheco advocated its prohibition. This was strongly opposed by Cardinal Madruzzi, who claimed that “not the translations but the professors of Hebrew and Greek are the cause of the confusion in Germany; a prohibition would produce the worst impression in Germany.” As no agreement could be had, the council appointed an index-commission to report to the pope, who was to give an authoritative decision.

2. Rules of Various Popes.

The first index published by a pope (Paul IV), in 1559, prohibited under the title of Biblia prohibita a number of Latin editions as well as the publication and possession of translations of the Bible in German, French, Spanish, Italian, English, or Dutch, without the permission of the sacred office of the Roman Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 264). In 1584 Pius IV published the index prepared by the commission mentioned above.

Herein ten rules are laid down, of which the fourth reads thus: “Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the rashness of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be augmented and not injured by it; and this permission must be had in writing. But if any shall have the presumption to read or possess it without such permission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary.”

Regulations for booksellers follow, and then: “Regulars shall neither read nor purchase such Bibles without special license from their superiors.” Sixtus V substituted in 1590 twenty-two new rules for the ten of Pius IV. Clement VIII abolished in 1596 the rules of Sixtus, but added a “remark” to the fourth rule given above, which particularly restores the enactment of Paul IV.

The right of the bishops, which the fourth rule implies, is abolished by the “remark,” and the bishop may grant a dispensation only when especially authorized by the pope and the Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 333). Benedict XIV enlarged, in 1757, the fourth rule thus: “If such Bible-versions in the vernacular are approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations derived from the holy fathers of the Church or from learned and Catholic men, they are permitted.” This modification of the fourth rule was abolished by Gregory XVI in pursuance of an admonition of the index-congregation, Jan. 7, 1836, “which calls attention to the fact that according to the decree of 1757 only such versions in the vernacular are to be permitted as have been approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations,” but insistence is placed on all those particulars enjoined by the fourth rule of the index and afterward by Clement VIII (Reusch, ut sup., ii, 852).

3. Rules and Practice in Different Countries.

In England the reading of the Bible was made by Henry VIII (1530) to depend upon the permission of the superiors. Tyndale’s version, printed before 1535, was prohibited. In 1534 the Canterbury convocation passed a resolution asking the king to have the Bible translated and to permit its reading. A folio copy of Coverdale’s translation was put into every church for the benefit of the faithful, and fastened with a chain.

In Spain the Inquisitor-General de Valdes published in 1551 the index of Louvain of 1550, which prohibits “Bibles (New and Old Testaments) in the Spanish or other vernacular” (Reusch, ut sup., i, 133). This prohibition was abolished in 1778.

The Lisbon index of 1824 in Portugal prohibited quoting in the vernacular in any book passages from the Bible. In Italy the members of the order of the Jesuits were in 1596 permitted to use a Catholic Italian translation of the Gospel-lessons. In France the Sorbonne declared, Aug. 26,1525, that a French translation of the Bible or of single books must be regarded as dangerous under conditions then present; extant versions were better suppressed than tolerated. In the following year, 1526, it prohibited the translation of the entire Bible, but permitted the translation of single books with proper annotations.

The indexes of the Sorbonne, which by royal edict were binding, after 1544 contained the statement: “How dangerous it is to allow the reading of the Bible in the vernacular to unlearned people and those not piously or humbly disposed (of whom there are many in our times) may be seen from the Waldensians, Albigenses, and Poor Men of Lyons, who have thereby lapsed into error and have led many into the same condition. Considering the nature of men, the translation of the Bible into the vernacular must in the present be regarded therefore as dangerous and pernicious” (Reusch, ut sup., i, 151).

The rise of Jansenism in the seventeenth century, and especially the appearance, under its encouragement, of Quesnel’s New Testament with moral reflections under each verse, which was expressly intended to popularize the reading of the Bible, caused the renewal, with increased stringency, of the rules already quoted. The Jesuits prevailed upon Clement XI to publish the famous bull Unigenitus, Sept. 8, 1713, in which he condemned seven propositions in Quesnel’s work which advocated the reading of the Bible by the laity.

In the Netherlands, Neercassel, bishop of Emmerich, published in 1677 (in Latin) and 1680 (in French) a treatise in which he dealt with the fourth rule of the Tridentine index as obsolete, and urged the diligent reading of the Bible. In Belgium in 1570 the unlicensed sale of the Bible in the vernacular was strictly prohibited; but the use of the Antwerp Bible continued. In Poland the Bible was translated and often published. In Germany papal decrees could not very well be carried out and the reading of the Bible was not only not prohibited, but was approved and praised.

Billuart about 1750, as quoted by Van Ess, states, “In France, Germany, and Holland the Bible is read by all without distinction.” In the nineteenth century the clergy took great interest in the work of Bible Societies. Thus Leander van Ess acted as agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society for Catholic Germany, and the society published the New Testament of Van Ess, which was placed on the Index in 1821. The princes-bishop of Breslau, Sedlnitzki, who afterward joined the Evangelical Church, was also interested in circulating the Bible. As the Bible Societies generally circulated the translations of heretics, the popes Leo XII (May 5, 1824); Pius VIII (May 25, 1829); Gregory XVI (Aug. 15, 1840; May 8, 1844); Pius IX (Nov. 9, 1846; Dec. 8, 1849) issued encyclicals against the Bible Societies. In the syllabus of 1864 “socialism, communism, secret societies, . . . and Bible Societies” are placed in the same category. As to the effect of the papal decrees there is a difference of opinion within the Catholic Church. In theory the admonition of Gregory XVI no doubt exists, but practice often ignores it.


Does that help?


55 posted on 03/01/2015 7:46:25 PM PST by Mr Rogers (Can you remember what America was like in 2004?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
1215 This sacrament is also called “the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one “can enter the kingdom of God.”7

There's no water in that verse...Not the washing of water...It's the washing of regeneration...

56 posted on 03/01/2015 7:50:46 PM PST by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

“I know you won’t believe me...”

I can’t help but notice you read minds when it suits you. I know from experience you cry to the moderator when someone has supposedly read yours.


57 posted on 03/01/2015 7:51:04 PM PST by .45 Long Colt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
The scripture of Yeshua's conversation with Nicodemus is pretty plain in context in John Chapter 3. Born of water is natural physical birth and born of Spirit is a Spiritual birth. Angels are thus prohibited from the redemption process, only the sons of Adam (all have sinned). The Spiritual birth is both the choice of a repentant sinner with the convicting work of the Holy Spirit and drawing of God the Father. At that moment the newly born again Christian's name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life, sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption or (the resurrection of the Just.
58 posted on 03/01/2015 7:53:30 PM PST by Stymee (Father of 8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Why do we need born again? We have the living, breathing Christ in the Holy Eucharist. No more is needed. And we have God’s one holy, apostolic and Catholic Church. The Church of saints, martyrs, and stigmatists, and the Church that through Petrine authority assembled the definitive books on the Bible through infallible interpretation. Why do we need anyone else’s interpretation?


59 posted on 03/01/2015 7:57:52 PM PST by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

Why do we need born again? We have the living, breathing Christ in the Holy Eucharist. No more is needed. And we have God’s one holy, apostolic and Catholic Church. The Church of saints, martyrs, and stigmatists, and the Church that through Petrine authority assembled the definitive books on the Bible through infallible interpretation. Why do we need anyone else’s interpretation?


60 posted on 03/01/2015 7:58:15 PM PST by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,261-1,263 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson