Why would anyone become Catholic?

https://www.indiegogo.com ^ | October 2, 2014 | Indiegogo

[NKP_Vet]

Why would intelligent, successful people give up their careers, alienate their friends, and cause havoc in their families...to become Catholic? Indeed, why would anyone become Catholic?

As an evangelist and author who recently threw my own life into some turmoil by deciding to enter the Catholic Church, I've faced this question a lot lately. That is one reason I decided to make this documentary; it's part of my attempt to try to explain to those closest to me why I would do such a crazy thing.

Convinced isn't just about me, though. The film is built around interviews with some of the most articulate and compelling Catholic converts in our culture today, including Scott Hahn, Francis Beckwith, Taylor Marshall, Holly Ordway, Abby Johnson, Jeff Cavins, Devin Rose, Matthew Leonard, Mark Regnerus, Jason Stellman, John Bergsma, Christian Smith, Kevin Vost, David Currie, Richard Cole, and Kenneth Howell. It also contains special appearances by experts in the field of conversion such as Patrick Madrid and Donald Asci.

Ultimately, this is a story about finding truth, beauty, and fulfillment in an unexpected place, and then sacrificing to grab on to it. I think it will entertain and inspire you, and perhaps even give you a fresh perspective on an old faith.

[CynicalBear]

>>We’re all supposed to be headed for that goal.<<

No,no,no. Just "headed for that goal isn't good enough". You have to be perfect.

Matthew 5:48 ye shall therefore be perfect, as your Father who is in the heavens is perfect.

As perfect as God in heaven is perfect. That is without sin of any kind. You think you are " headed for that goal"?

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

You think you can attain righteousness by following the law?

Romans 9:31 and Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, at a law of righteousness did not arrive; 32 wherefore? because -- not by faith, but as by works of law; for they did stumble at the stone of stumbling,

There is only one way we can attain righteousness.

Romans 9:30 What, then, shall we say? that nations who are not pursuing righteousness did attain to righteousness, and righteousness that is of faith,

It's our faith in Christ by which we are counted righteous. And it is the righteousness of Christ that is imputed to us.

Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

You want to work for your own righteousness like the Israelites? You want to "head for that goal"? Suit yourself but it ain't gonna happen. Those of us who put our faith and trust in Christ alone have already had the righteousness of Christ credited to our account.

[af_vet_1981]

All of the lost sheep of the House of Israel are “gentiles.” They are the people to whom Yeshua came. They were declared “not my people” in Hosea, but under the ministry of Paul, they again became a people. Basically, you haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about, if you think being a “gentile” means anything at all. There is no longer Jew, nor Gentile; Yeshua tore the vail, and opened the door that cannot be closed.

I posted this on wrong thread, posting here now:

I noticed a reference to the word "Gentile" being defined as the lost sheep of the House of Israel and have some questions. Do you believe the Greeks, Spanish, Egyptians, and Nigerians are biblical Gentiles ? Do you believe an Israelite has to be born of a Jewish father and/or mother ? Do you, for example, call yourself a Jew, or a Gentile, and why ?

[CynicalBear]

>>All of the lost sheep of the House of Israel are “gentiles.”<<

Preposterous. Evidently a made up construct of the apostate Michael Rood.

>>Basically, you haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about, if you think being a “gentile” means anything at all.<<

Wow, back to making it personal I see.

>>Yeshua tore the vail, and opened the door that cannot be closed.<<

The Vail had nothing to do with being Jew or Gentile. It had to do with access to God.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

Insofar as Luther the man is concerned at issue is how Luther’s scrupulosity, a psychological disorder, informed the development of reformed doctrine.

---

Popes, Luther, heretical Catholic antiscriptural doctrines and pagan practices are all meaningless to me.

My faith is upon Jesus.

[CynicalBear]

>>Popes, Luther, heretical Catholic antiscriptural doctrines and pagan practices are all meaningless to me.<<

Catholics have been so indoctrinated into obedience to earthly leadership they don't have even a concept of what that means.

[metmom]

They don’t as any born again former Catholic can attest.

[daniel1212]

Do you believe the behavior and attitude of the Jews makes them unlovable as a race, both in Luther's time, Hitler's time, and in our day ? I'm all ears, so to speak

So in response to the evidence of Catholic antisemtism, you react with this? True to form.

Note that despite your polemical contruance, I did not say race, but referred culture at the time, that i think "the Jews overall had evidently made themselves rather unlovable." I think when Christians are characteristically self-righteous, clannish, and are guilty of things your popes and contemporaries charge, then they make themselves rather unlovable, more so that standing for truth will, versus proactively interacting with souls with grace and charity, without compromising.

Perhaps i should not believe things your popes and contemporaries charge, and would be happy to see it refuted, but i do try to look at things objectively.

I think it is rather that the Jewish people are a perpetual testimony to the LORD God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, and serve some kind of corporate function to bring out the best and worst of man's nature across the whole earth.

It is not "rather," which would be a false dilemma, but all else that you said is true.

The Jewish mistrust of it comes with the exclusion of the Jews, where the proponent yearns for, and loves, Israel only as a sign of the return of the LORD Jesus Christ,

Imputing that motive to me typical of your apologetics, yet i can honestly say it is not true. I have a special love for Jews (my own land lord and his mom who is upstairs even are) which is from God, which is not due to love shown from them to me.

Reading or watching about the Holocaust has made me angry, and i asked myself whether i would be willing to identify myself as a Jew in support of them in such a case. I bought the movie "Escape from Sobibor" recently and think every kid in the USA should watch it. The Germans who took part in such treatment were not showing Christianity And due to that love, which i believe should be an attribute of every born again believer, regardless of eschatology, and i do not think is overall due to it, is behind my support of Israel, the latter day conversion of which people Scripture does foretell , and I also love the Rose Price story video as well, which i also have, thank God. But i have a special affection for Jews nonetheless.

My comment about Jews being rather unlovable simply provides some historical context, as does the NT for the words of Paul, that wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. Whether you believe me or not.

Hence, one can see why I forgave the Catholic Church when that frail old man, blessed John Paul II, walked up to the Western Wall to put a prayer to God for forgiveness in one of the cracks.

Better late than never, or praying to departed saints, but of course it was only the "children of the church who did such things as torture and kill "heretics," not the pristine church, despite such being done in obedience to the sppsd "vicar of Christ."

[terycarl]

The books that you just said they had. Scripture. Legal documents. Receipts. Anyone in business would WANT to be literate. People WANT to be literate.

I didn't ever say that no one could read, of course business people had to at least be semi-literate, but the VAST majority of lay people...common people were illiterate mostly because they had nothing to read. There sere scribes at that time who would read for you and write correspondence for you if you needed it done.....probably for a price.

[terycarl]

WOW. Catholics make such a pariah of Luther, as if that invalidates all of Protestantism, and when it's a POPE, it gets hand waved away as irrelevant. As usual. So then. Luther wasn't perfect. One man out of 2,000 years of true Christian church history. Big deal.

Nope, Catholics don't make a pariah of Luther, they just point out that he was one of the more prominant revolutionaries against Christ's church.

Luther and all the revolutionaries were far from perfect as they led millions of people, over the years, from the true church to Heaven only knows what.....very tragic

[terycarl]

So you see, whenever the protestant Catholic attempts to discredit the Catholic Church Reformation by bringing up "bad" popes reformers, they are just engaging in projection.

not a good analogy at all...the bad popes were merely CEO's of an organization which remained faultless even while they ruled. The "reformers" as you refer to them were actively teying to lead people away from Christ's church. Theologically speaking, they were all bad.

[terycarl]

You are surely on a roll! Your proclaimed "Catholics" couldn't read or write but yet you want us to believe it is those illiterars who wrote the scriptures. I find it incredibly sad that that makes sense to you.

many people could write BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE COMMON PEOPLE WERE ILLITERATE.

[terycarl]

Impossible. You just told me they could neither read nor write

no I didn't, I said that a VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WERE ILLITERATE

[daniel1212]

..AnaBaptists who Luther condemned for heresy in writing,

Which testifies to the fact that Luther is not determinative of evangelical faith, contrary to the RC imagination. The weight of Scripture that he pointed to as supreme is, and thus Luther himself progressed in theological views.

Most Christians belong to denominations that practise infant baptism

Misleading. This is mostly based upon Catholics and EOs, and does not refute that paedobaptism is a minority position in Protestantism.

Looking at the 15 largest Prot. denoms in in America (the only list under one heading i could find)

their reports:

1. Southern Baptist Convention: 16.2 million members
2. The United Methodist Church: 7.8 million members
3. The Church of God in Christ: 5.5 million members
4. National Baptist Convention: 5.0 million members
5. Evangelical Lutheran Church, U.S.A.: 4.5 million members
6. National Baptist Convention of America: 3.5 million members
7. Assemblies of God: 2.9 million members
8. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.): 2.8 million members
9. African Methodist Episcopal Church: 2.5 million members
10. National Missionary Baptist Convention of America: 2.5 million members
11. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS): 2.3 million members
12. The Episcopal Church: 2.0 million members
13. Churches of Christ: 1.6 million members
14. Pentecostal Assemblies of the World: 1.5 million members
15. The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church: 1.4 million members

The majority of Protestant denominations in America, , approx. 38 million, reject infant baptism, versus approx. 22 that practice it.

Worldwide is more difficult in real terms, as they include Lutheran state churches in which i think one may be counted as a member by default, yet even still, with Baptist churches at 75-100 million and Modern Protestantism (Pentecostalism, Nondenominational evangelicalism, etc) at 400-500 million - and not including cults - then it out numbers the approx 300 million Lutheran, Methodist, Reformed, Anglican type churches WW.

You could explain which historical Protestants do not practice it today and show when that originated. Basically anything Baptist (SBC being the largest by far) or "Modern Protestantism" in the list .

Believer's (adult) baptism was a minority position among Protestants until the 1800's and the Great Awakenings, the effects of which can be seen today.

The cause was because the Scriptures, under which they were born again with its profound changes in heart and life, became alive to souls and the standard for Truth. After i become born again i was very hungry to know how to please God according to Scripture, yet overall marginalized peripheral or debatable issues.

And therein they could only find infant baptism by conjecture, that whole house baptisms must have includes kids who could not discern sin and their need for Christ, yet in any description of any real detail, it is those who could hear and respond that were baptized, and which is required to fulfil the stated conditions.

And it is simply inconceivable that the Holy Spirit would not provide at least one example of infant baptism considering is cardinal importance according to Catholicism.

Yet as said, there is a difference btwn simply seeing baptism as including one in covenant with others, versus holding it renders he baptized formally justified by his own, if infused, holiness, thus requiring purgatory to obtain such Holiness at the end.

[daniel1212]

What I'm referring to is an interesting exchange I observed approximately three weeks ago here in which this line of reasoning was brutally eviscerated by the Catholic Faithful. To use a sports analogy it was a portension of Bama vs. Texas A&M.

Really, and just where and how was this line of reasoning "brutally eviscerated by the Catholic Faithful?" Quite the opposite if anything. All i see is vain propagandic argument-by-assertion or links, logical fallacies and ad hominems by RC posters even less mature than here overall but the same RC line of reasoning being exposed as fallacious, as it always has been here.

See my exchange here and show me where it was at all refuted.

[CynicalBear]

>>many people could write BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE COMMON PEOPLE WERE ILLITERATE.<<

Let's look at the conversation. I said:

"Jesus chose lowly fishermen and even they could read and write".

Then you said:

"pray tell, what did they have to read??? All books, at that time, were hand written."

See where we were SPECIFICALLY talking about the apostles at that point? Now you try dodge? Could you be more disingenuous?

[CynicalBear]

>>no I didn't,<<

Yes, you did. As I I st showed you.

>> I said that a VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WERE ILLITERATE<<

You can shout all you want. I just showed that we were SPECIFICALLY talking about the apostles who were fishermen. It's on record.

[BlueDragon]

As you said, dan

"...and just where and how was this line of reasoning "brutally eviscerated by the Catholic Faithful?" Quite the opposite if anything. All i see is vain propagandic argument-by-assertion or links, logical fallacies and ad hominems by RC posters..."

I saw the last tangled wreck of cross threading, supposition, assertions, logical fallacies, etc., all bundled up in a little filthy bag of poison, set on your own doorstep -- and wanted to kick it.

But since there was some smoldering flame-like thing going on with it too, it's best that I didn't.

I see you doused it with water, then swept it off with a shovel. Good job.

But just WOW.

I think that may have been one of the worst singular unjustified cases of cross-threading I have ever seen. It's one thing to link to example, and/or extended comments from elsewhere that are cogent to points which are under discussion -- it's quite another thing to do so as a baiting & tempting of individuals here, wherein one has to go fishing around first-- just to see what is being talked about, and then to try and make sense of it.

Not only was it dragging rabbit warren sort of low grade argument from another thread -- it was dragging it to this thread from OFF-SITE! ---even though we had a long thread on that very same subject/precise same article just recently here on FR.

There appears to have been a rash of cross-threading here of late, too. Not just a single cross-threading, but a series of the thread-to-thread badgering kind.

I just documented what portions of that case which were still visible before entire deletion, seeing the comments still extant on un-refreshed "comments" page -- while they otherwise went bye-bye on "thread" pages.... with the cross-thread badgering coming from a 'forum hero' of the one who is presently your here antagonist.

It must be like a radar-love kind of thing...their [ahem] spirits in accord?

Strangers in the Night

[Springfield Reformer]

To which I would add that most Baptists reject paedobaptism, not only because it is not exampled in Scripture, but also because they do not have a sacramental view of baptism, but as with the Lord’s Supper, understand that the outward act expresses a grace already inwardly received.

Sacramentalism is a correlate of sacerdotalism; the two stand or fall together, though in varying degree. If one must have priests, they must earn their keep as intermediaries between men and God and do SOMEthing only a priest can do, such as administer the sacraments. But if the Scriptures do not teach a continuation of the OT priesthood (and how could they, given Christ has met all the real obligations for which the OT priests were mere foreshadowing), then sacramental ritual as a means of grace is a superfluity, a redundancy to the grace already recieved.

Grace is not a fluid, like a fuel we can run out of, or something periodically doled out to us like prescription pills. Rather it is written into everything our Heavenly Father does for us, his undeserved favor, which lights up every dark corner of our life with undeserved joy, and which is not conditional on whether our skin is washed in water or our mouth occupied with bread and wine, but on His unconditional, unlimited, unending love for us.

Peace,

SR

[daniel1212]

Insofar as Luther the man is concerned at issue is how Luther's scrupulosity, a psychological disorder, informed the development of reformed doctrine..."The Church cannot err in proclaiming the faith. Only the individual within her is liable to error." ~ Martin Luther

Apparently you are a student of Father O’Hare, but as with all quote mining from Catholics, it would be best to search this site for research on them, and see here on O’Hare and Psycho. http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/10/father-ohares-facts-about-luther.html

[metmom]

I didn't ever say that no one could read, of course business people had to at least be semi-literate, but the VAST majority of lay people...common people were illiterate mostly because they had nothing to read. There sere scribes at that time who would read for you and write correspondence for you if you needed it done.....probably for a price.

The vast majority of *lay* people WERE business people. They had to support themselves somehow and they did it by running their own businesses. Carpenters, fishermen, tax-collectors, tent makers, weavers, whatever.

Plus, it was IMPORTANT to the Jews at least, to be able to read God's word.