Do Republicans want a Protestant POTUS candidate?

57% of Republicans are Protestant and 23% are Catholic, if I read the data at Pew Research correctly.

Today, after church (Presbyterian, but thinking about joining an unaffilated church), a group of us older and more conservative men began discussing the lack of enthusiasm among the Republican base for any of the current candidates. One fellow said "I am not Catholic because I do not agree with the Catholic Church's teachings and I am not Mormon because I do not want to be a Mormon". Others generally agreed and said that the candidate's religion mattered a lot.

Is the talk about a contested convention and the possibility of candidates like Palin, Jeb Bush, etc. really a front for a movement toward a Protestant candidate?

I know I will be flamed for asking this question, but please consider it as a question that the base is considering.

Disclosure: Among the group, I like Newt the best, but in a contested convention, I would prefer someone new paired with Paul Ryan as VP (Ryan is a Catholic).

Shall i provide you will names of converts to evangelical faith from Rome, which are far more? The reason why the % of RCs in the U.S. has remained overall steady is due to immigration (68% of all Latinos in the U.S. ID as RCs, and among Catholics under the age of 45% are Latino) although 20% of all Latino American Catholics have left Roman Catholicism, an overall 68% of those raised Roman Catholic still are Catholic, while 80% of adults who were raised Protestant are still Protestant. http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html

But atheism and witchcraft are the fastest growing religions, and conversion itself does not prove Scriptural authenticity, nor does unity, and the reason why one converts is the real issue.

Roman Catholic apologists often charge that converts to evangelical Churches are driven by desire for a more liberal form of Christianity due to strictness of doctrine within Catholicism, Yet based upon the evidence it is easier to say that majority of Catholics remain because of the very lack of strictness of doctrine.

And in contrast to the above idea, 71% of Protestants converts from Catholicism said it was not really doctrine but that that their spiritual needs were not being met in Catholicism, with 78% who became evangelical Protestants concurring, versus 43% of those now unaffiliated, The latter class being the ones who most likely to leave because of rejection of moral doctrine.

Less than 30% of former Catholics agreed that the clergy sexual abuse scandal was a reason played a role in their departure.

I myself was raised As part of a devout Catholic family Two God-fearing parents with five kids (and two uncles who were priests) whom they sought sought to raise that way, but I was not born again until age 25 in sincere personal repentance toward God and faith to the Lord Jesus Christ to save me as a Holy Spirit convicted, morally destitute and damned sinner.

And yet I remained Catholic, if not totally all my beliefs, weekly attending services for 6 years, during which I served as a lecturer and CCD teacher and went to many charismatic meetings, before I sincerely prayed whether God might have me leave for a different church (more for desire of working/serving fellowship in a active church than simply doctrine).

Which he promptly answered in an evident manner which has been confirmed abundantly through the years since, and i know the vast and positive difference between the institutionalized Christianity - which includes a good deal of Protestantism - in the gospel which effects manifest regeneration and doctrine accompanying it. Even though I have a long way to for Christ to have preeminence in all things in me, and for love and faith that “Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. “ (1 Corinthians 13:7) To say the least

And from what I have read of conversions it seems like most of the time the people are mesmerized by selective appeals to the so-called church fathers as if they were they profoundly enlightened determinative interpreters of Scripture, and always consistent with themselves and with each other, and supported Rome in such a way as the latter-day apologists make them out to be. And even if they were that carries little weight with me. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Issues.html

The Orthodox largely based on interpretation of the same sources, critically dissent from Rome (papal infallibility no less among other things.

There is even a scholar in a certain Christian commune which has read all the anteNicene fathers uses them to justify his premise that Christians must leave all and live is a commune.

Lost in all this is the supremacy of Scripture, which paradoxically some writings of the church fathers can be seen to support over that of the church, and tradition as being equal to Scripture.

Scripture is the only material transcendent source which is stated in the wholly inspired wholly inspired of God, and is abundantly evidenced in Scripture, as shown before, that it is the supreme standard for obedience and the testing truth claims.

And it is upon that basis that evangelicals contend for common core truths and against those who deviate from them as well as against teachings which flow from tradition and the self-proclaimed supremacy of an supposedly assuredly infallible magisterium.

And as also said, the church began in dissent from those who presumed the like and authenticity based upon historical dissent, while Christ and the church were established by conformity to Scripture in its means of attestation, while comprehensive doctrinal unity was ever a goal not realized.

Enough said.

“I was not born again until age 25 in sincere personal repentance toward God and faith to the Lord”

You were “born again” when you were baptised and if you still went to the Catholic Church you would be “saved” each and every time you properly presented yourself for communion.
The sad thing about relapsed Catholics and protestants that have never known the beauty of the Catholic faith is they will never get a chance to be in the actual presence of Jesus Christ at the Eucharist.

Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted,
Jesus took bread, and gave you thanks.
He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples and said:

“Take this, all of you, and eat it:
This is my body which will be given up for you.”

When supper was ended, he took the cup.
Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:

“Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.
It will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be forgiven.
Do this in memory of me.”

You’ll notice Jesus does not say the bread SYMBOLIZES his body or the cup of wine SYMBOLIZES his blood. He said it was HIS BODY AND BLOOD. I’ve never understood why Protestants think Jesus was lying to them.

Writing to the Christians of Smyrna, in about AD 106, Saint Ignatius warned them to “stand aloof from such heretics”, because, among other reasons, “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”

St Paul teaches the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He states that the cup of blessing is the participation in the blood of Christ and the bread we break is the participation in the body of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 10:16). What must the cup and the bread be to make possible this participation in the blood and body of Christ? The most obvious and logical answer is that the bread and cup of wine must really be the body and blood of Christ. St Paul also said that whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord; and any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself (See 1 Corinthians 11:27, 29). How can eating mere bread and wine unworthily be so serious? Paul’s comments make sense only if bread and wine become the real body and blood of Christ.

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a39.htm

No, i was definitely NOT born again when i was sprinkled with water in recognition of the faith of my parents, anymore than Hitler was, or the vast multitudes of RCs today who evidence no real regeneration, and overall evidence little desire for worship and preaching, or manifest ongoing desire to know how to please God direct from Scripture. These are not backsliden as they never evidenced a contrasting Scriptural "front-sliding."

In Scripture, regeneration effects immediate and supernatural effects in heart and life, and which sets them in contrast to a backsliden state. (Acts 2:42; 16:14,15, 30-34; 1 Thessalonians 1:6-10; Gal. 4:6) This is not mere conformity to religious form, or cultic practices, but a conversion that often occurred in the same hour that they heard the gospel, and initially is a spontaneous (and often radical) change in heart affections and life direction, and leads into growth in grace characterized by led by the Spirit in obeying the Scripture.

The basic interior difference alone which i realized as a result of being born again at age 25 was such that it was essentially like day and night. (2Cor. 5:17) My soul was alive for the first time, and even nature seemed new to me (and i had a good job, health, friends , etc. before that, and was not addicted to drugs). I knew i had to get a Bible and had an insatiable desire to know how to please God according to it, listening to Christian radio day and night as a truck driver, but also for the first time i realized the real conflict between the flesh and the Spirit.

And while i certainly do not and did not think i had “arrived” (and in fact i was/am conscious of specific even “minor” sins unlike before), i was much different than the rest of the Catholics that i knew and kept going to Mass with, with very very few exceptions of simple souls and one who was influenced by evangelicals. And my compulsion to speak about Christ was not mere emotionalism, but flowed from a conversion of heart from spiritual death to life, and to say that was already born again before my heart conviction and conversion is absurd and makes a mockery of Scriptural regeneration.

I was sincere in my belief in God as child, but had never come to God as soul who was convicted of his desperate need for salvation, being a sinner destitute of any means to save himself, and who called upon the Lord Jesus to save by His blood and righteous, of a broken heart and contrite spirit — which God is nigh unto and promises to save. (Ps. 34:18) Had i died before then i would have been lost. Yet it that kind of heart that i must have more of today. (Is. 66:2)

But like i was, multitudes in both Roman Catholicism and many in Protestantism go thru rituals, and give sincere or perfunctory intellectual assent to questions, and may be “religious” according to its forms, but they where never convicted of “of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment,” (Jn. 16:9) which conviction preceded Scriptural conversion out of the kind of faith the is evidence in baptism — results in clear rejection.

"And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee. " (Acts 24:25)

"Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? " (Acts 2:37)

"And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. " (Acts 9:6)

"Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? " (Acts 16:29-30)

As for baptism and the Lord's supper, i have dealt with the Roman Catholic misconstruance of them so often here that i am not going to do so again right now (tired) on this old and dying tread, but will direct you to an extensive examination i wrote a few years ago on the latter. And as regards not being in the claimed “actual presence of Jesus Christ at the Eucharist,” besides doctrine, looking back, I never saw or realized any real change or difference after having partaken sincerely out of a contrite heart. Roman Catholics and i were the same before and after receiving the Catholic Eucharist, though i would not preclude some may experience psychological effects, apart from a deceptive source.

The Catholic Church was founded by Christ to be the pillar and foundation of all Truth. He gave us this truth to be a visible authority over time, so that we might be instructed in all things as he instructed the Apostles.

That being said, yes, if one was a Catholic, and understands this truth, that the Catholic Church teaches God’s truth so that me might be saved, and then, despite this realization, one chooses to turn ones back on that Truth and the Church that teaches it, yes, that would be a sin.

There are however, many Catholics who never had a full understanding of the gift they were given in their membership in the Church. They may have been poorly catechised or they may simply have not understood what was put before them (sometimes sin seperates us from truth, ultimately though, Faith is a gift of Grace and we need to be willing to accept the gifts we are given, they are not shoved down our throats, even if parents might try to do so).

So truly, in the end, only God knows the true disposition of the soul that leaves the Church. And it is this disposition of the soul that makes for a sin.

When one turns away from God, from having our Lord as our God, this is a sin. It can be either a Major sin (we call it a Mortal Sin) or it can be a minor sin (we call it venial), but either way, turning from God does damage to our soul and that’s really what sin is, a seperation that we create between us and God, our willingness to cease doing the will of God and then taking action on our will.

It is also my understanding that one can formally leave the Catholic Church by informing their local Bishop of their intent to do so. This would relieve you of the Canon Law obligation to follow the teachings of the Church, but it would not change either Natural Law or Moral Law, both of which, as taught by the Church, but not being reserved to the Church, have been given to us for our own good. Living in accord with the teachings of the Church will allow us to live our lives most fully and hopefully with fewer errors to regret.

What you are is a lapsed Catholic. I’ll pray that one day God will lead you back to His church. God bless you.

That is your interpretation of V2, which some other RCs differs with, and no, i am not one whose dissent from Rome is due to ignorance, or who, “knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ,... refuse either to enter it or to remain in it, (CCC #846) but instead i know quite well her claims that it is the Roman Catholic church of today that is the OTC, though now she broadly affirms Protestants as saved, but i “know” from Scripture that the the claim of Rome is presumptuous.

And thus i was/am constrained by conscience and the assured Word of God to give assent to the Scriptures over her claims, wherein they differ, as well as defend those we both concur with.

And,

“Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church” (Pope Benedict XVI [then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger], Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1,chapter 1.).

You can protest that my choice means i am relying on my fallible human reasoning, however prayerful, and have need of an assuredly infallible interpreter, however most of Scripture was established and truth was preserved before there was a papal claim by Rome.

In addition, you yourself made a fallible decision to join or remain in the RC system and exercise the same in interpreting her.

Even as regards infallible teaching, RCs own “internal assent is obligatory only on those who can give it consistently with the claims of objective truth on their conscience, it is assumed, being directed by a spirit of generous loyalty to genuine Catholic principles [which again is a fallible choice.]

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); — http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

And deciding this involves your own finite interpretation in many cases, as there is no infallible canon of all infallible teaching, and thus there is variance among RCs as to how many there are, with only a few being accepted as such out of potentially multitudes. And reliance upon finite interpretation is also the case to differing degrees in all that RCs hold to and practice.

Thus we both made a potentially fallible choice to hold to our respective assuredly infallible supreme authorities, Scripture and the sacred magisterium respectively, which we both assent to and interpret, though lacking assuredly infallible interpretation of either.

Both parties (sola scriptura and sola ecclesia) typically hold to some core teachings while suffering varying degrees of interpretation on other things (and RCs can and do differ in more than they realize), the difference only being in matter of degrees.

And not that SS does not disallow the magisterium or tradition as helps in understanding, nor the judicial authority of the former, but that neither is assuredly infallible, as in Scripture truth was not based upon a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium of men - which idea is not supported but wrested from Scripture - but instead truth claims were established upon Scriptural warrant, both textual and by the manner of supernatural attestation it provides for, and under which it first was penned. To the glory of God.

“For the kingdom of God is not in word [self-proclamation], but in power,” (1 Corinthians 4:20) first and foremost by the evangelical gospel which convicts and converts souls with manifest regeneration, often in the same hour as they first heard the good news (though the prep work can take decades).

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.