I'm angry at evangelical religions


#1

I was formerly a Baptist for thirty years and I was spoon fed from the pulpit and read tons of evangelical books, evangelical study bibles and yet NEVER knowing the truth REAL church truth. I trusted in Jesus as my Lord and Savior. I was taught salvation by faith ALONE and the Catholic religion apostasied RIGHT after the last apostle died. I was SOOOOOOO brainwashed, that I was brainwashed to anything different, then what I was taught.

Until I picked up a book by Stephen Ray called “Crossing the Tiber”. He made incrediable claims about the Eucharist and water baptism that I never heard. Never!!! And he quoted the early church fathers as well. At first I said this guy got whammied by some Catholic guru. But I went and purchased a Logos CD on the early fathers and installed it on my PC. What I read FLOORED ME. They ALL held to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and baptism regeneration. I COULDN’T BELIEVE IT. I was shocked! Slowly God opened my eyes to these new truths and other Catholic beliefs. Also I found MUCH truth right here on the web page of Catholic answers in the :Fathers know best" series. Thank you Catholic Answers, thank you.

So why am I VERY angry? Because these authors and ministers who formerly taught me all this other stuff HAD TO KNOW about the truth of what the early church believed and I wasted thirty years of my life because of what they told me. I TRUSTED THEM. How could educated ministers and professors who know better and studied church history in college tell their congregations absolute lies? How?

Have any of you had a simuliar experience? Please share it with me.


#2

i spent 6 years as an evangelical Christian. Was a cradle Catholic and am now a Catholic again.
In my experience, history in the evangelical Church stopped after John wrote Revelation and started up again with Martin Luther.
And in the middle, all they say is that the Church changed doctrines with man made traditions.
All of the evangelicals I knew simply took the bible alone theory for granted. They assumed it was the truth by definition without proof.
For them, their entire faith is predicated upon the primacy and sufficiency of the bible alone.
The other argument that is asumed is that the bible is simple to read, while Catholicism has so many rules and regulations and traditions.
They point to this as somehow showing proof that catholicism is in error becuase they assume that the simplicity of the gospel is somehow tacit proof that it comes from God.
because after all, God must make the message of salvation so simple that even an idiot could know it and come to the knowledge of Christ.

I honestly think that the vast majority of evangelical Christians are people of good faith, meaning that they have a simple faith and don’t really question their assumptions, but are sincere as well. Most people aren’t self motivated to question the very basis of their faith and let it be tested becuase they are comfortable where they are and don’t know that their doctrines do not stand up to the constant teaching of the Christian faith.


#3

Hi,

I can understand your sentiments since I’m a former evangelical who is now becoming Catholic. It is interesting how in the Protestant church we are never given information about the early church that is not in the Bible. Maybe it is the sola scriptura platform, I do not know?


#4

If these Protestant lay people would just take the time to examine what the early fathers and the early church REALLY believed, they would cease to be Protestant. It is a TERRIBLE tragedy.


#5

I’m not as “angry” at evanglicals as I am at Catholics. (Puzzled is a more acurate feeling than angry).

It took people I’ve never met to lead me to the Catholic Church. Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion turned the light on and EWTN brought me an understanding of the fullness of the Catholic Church. (I’ve been praying the Rosary for the last six months and am I’m now in RCIA.)

Marcus Grodi on EWTN mentions often that Catholics do an incredibly poor job at evangelizing.


#6

rarndt01,

The early Church Fathers really did a great witnessing to the Catholic faith. I know it was part of God’s plan that these holy people will leave us their writings about the Catholic Faith so that, with all the marvelous technology that we have right now, non-catholics will be able to have access in reading them. Praise be to God!

Unfortunately, there are still other non-catholics (and even former catholics) who, eventhough they read the ECF writings, they still refuse to believe them. They have this sort of “cafeteria catholicism” attitude and they like to pick the writings of the ECF that they like, and the rest that doesn’t agree with what they are taught they reject. That’s probably why there are a lot of Protestant ministers who still cling to their “sola Scriptura, Sola Fide” beliefs.

Anyways, the ECF and the Catholic Faith are the same and fully intact. Thanks be to God for His Catholic Church who doesn’t change her teachings even if the world continues to change!

Pio


#7

I am not trying to start a fight but I was wondering how the Catholic Church comments on these statements by Church Fathers.

Irenaeus and Tertullian 2nd Century
"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

Bishop of Jerusalm mid 4th Century
Catechetical Lectures
“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures."

St. Gregory of Nyssa 385-386
"The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."


#8

Perhaps this article can explain what these fathers are writing about.

chnetwork.org/journals/authority/authority_6.htm


#9

The Catholic Church looks at those statements by the ECF and says a loud, “Amen!” You seem to be implying a dichotomy that is not there.

Scott


#10

[quote=Scott Waddell]The Catholic Church looks at those statements by the ECF and says a loud, “Amen!”

Scott
[/quote]

Lutherans do the same.


#11

Originally Posted by Scott Waddell
*The Catholic Church looks at those statements by the ECF and says a loud, “Amen!” *

Scott

Lutherans do the same.

–Yes, they do the same, BUT they only hold on to that particular statement and disregard the others because they contradict their beliefs. This is what I have just refered to in my previous post above.

Do you know how many of the other writings of the ECF that they rejected? Purgatory, Infant Baptism, Indulgences, Christ Real Presence in the Eucharist, and the list goes on and on.

Pio


#12

[quote=hlgomez]Originally Posted by Scott Waddell
*The Catholic Church looks at those statements by the ECF and says a loud, “Amen!” *

Scott

Lutherans do the same.

–Yes, they do the same, BUT they only hold on to that particular statement and disregard the others because they contradict their beliefs. This is what I have just refered to in my previous post above.

Do you know how many of the other writings of the ECF that they rejected? Purgatory, Infant Baptism, Indulgences, Christ Real Presence in the Eucharist, and the list goes on and on.

Pio
[/quote]

Lutherans hold dear infant baptism and the real presence. We are not happy about other Protestant denominations doing such things either

"I would rather drink blood with the papists than mere wine with the Zwinglians.”

  • Martin Luther

#13

"So why am I VERY angry? Because these authors and ministers who formerly taught me all this other stuff HAD TO KNOW about the truth of what the early church believed and I wasted thirty years of my life because of what they told me. I TRUSTED THEM. How could educated ministers and professors who know better and studied church history in college tell their congregations absolute lies? How?

Have any of you had a simuliar experience? Please share it with me."

I’ve been a Catholic all my life and therefore do not have a convert’s perspective but I do believe you did not waste your time because those ministers introduced you to Christ. I also do not believe they necessarily erred on “purpose” It is possible they sincerely believed that what they were teaching you was correct.
Just embrace your Catholic faith now, and pray that many other people will come to know the “full” truth.

Do not hold anger in your heart because anger can be very damaging to one’s spiritual life.

Antonio :slight_smile:


#14

I am a member of a predominantly-Black Baptist Church. And my 2nd RCIA class was last night.

Please remember this: God is in control. Romans 8:28 etc. Perhaps we had to come this way. How do we know?

You are angry because you think others were in control. They weren’t in control. God was always in control. Once you see that, you will stop being so angry.

The vast majority of your teachers simply didn’t know. Even your Protestant Pastors.

The most educated Bible translators knew that some of what they were doing was wrong. When they allowed their own theology to influence how they translated the Bible. However, even with the major Protestant translations, there is really not too much error. Often the rejected translation appears as an “alternative reading”. Of course, Protestant Bibles don’t have the deuterocanonical books in them. And Protestant Bibles do not footnote a link to Isaiah 22:20-25 in the text Matthew 16:18.

All isn’t lost. After I first “got saved”, I read a lot of C.S. Lewis books. Until I got to a George MacDonald book (he had inspired C. S. Lewis). George MacDonald was good, but it all sounded a bit too Catholic. When I first met with my Roman Catholic Priest in June, one of the first things I noticed was a C. S. Lewis book in his library. And I thought to myself what was that doing here? A lot of Roman Catholics love C. S. Lewis.

And also consider this – a lot of “cradle Catholics” are very weak in their discipleship training. Or they may have a lot of head knowledge without enthusiasm from their heart. New converts into the Catholic faith usually bring enthusiasm.

Those of us coming in to the Roman Catholic Church may very well help others in the Roman Catholic Church. That is what I am hearing sometimes. Most of my RCIA volunteers were RCIA graduates and not “cradle Catholics”.

When I was in college, a lot of Roman Catholics my age were reading books by John Henry Cardinal Newman. What I didn’t know then was that he was a convert to the Catholic faith.


#15

[quote=rarndt01]I was formerly a Baptist for thirty years and I was spoon fed from the pulpit and read tons of evangelical books, evangelical study bibles and yet NEVER knowing the truth REAL church truth. I trusted in Jesus as my Lord and Savior. I was taught salvation by faith ALONE and the Catholic religion apostasied RIGHT after the last apostle died. I was SOOOOOOO brainwashed, that I was brainwashed to anything different, then what I was taught.Until I picked up a book by Stephen Ray called “Crossing the Tiber”. He made incrediable claims about the Eucharist and water baptism that I never heard. Never!!! And he quoted the early church fathers as well. At first I said this guy got whammied by some Catholic guru. But I went and purchased a Logos CD on the early fathers and installed it on my PC. What I read FLOORED ME. They ALL held to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and baptism regeneration. I COULDN’T BELIEVE IT. I was shocked! Slowly God opened my eyes to these new truths and other Catholic beliefs. Also I found MUCH truth right here on the web page of Catholic answers in the :Fathers know best" series. Thank you Catholic Answers, thank you.
So why am I VERY angry? Because these authors and ministers who formerly taught me all this other stuff HAD TO KNOW about the truth of what the early church believed and I wasted thirty years of my life because of what they told me. I TRUSTED THEM. How could educated ministers and professors who know better and studied church history in college tell their congregations absolute lies? How?Have any of you had a simuliar experience? Please share it with me.
[/quote]

Same with me brother, and some!!! Many pastors in my family too! It’s the entire “Protestant” mindset. They outright reject and have for 500 years Matthew 16: 18-20. It’s all they have known!!!

Just use your experience now to help Protestants you know in your life to come to know the TRUTH in Christ’s Church. Share tapes and books with others. It’s the best way—and share what you’ve come to find out too. Be bold–step out–take that risk!! May I ask the exact name of that Logos CD on the Church Fathers? I’d love to see it!!!

God Bless~~


#16

This is so true. As a recent convert from Southern Baptist, I’ve wondered quite a bit about how those I trusted to teach me simply ignored the first 1500 years of Christianity. The answer, as jmm08 says, is that they don’t know they’re wrong. Most were brought up in a certain demonitation, and their families go back several generations in the same one. Their pastors are the same way. You trust them, the way they trusted their family, teachers, and pastors. That goes on for several generations. They have no reason to question what they’ve always been taught. I truly believe that the overwhelming majority of those that do the misleading are not doing so intentionally. They’re doing it in good faith. They are just wrong.


#17

[quote=sparkle]Same with me brother, and some!!! Many pastors in my family too! It’s the entire “Protestant” mindset. They outright reject and have for 500 years Matthew 16: 18-20. It’s all they have known!!!
[/quote]

We do not outright reject or even covertly reject this verse or any other verse; although we definitely disagree with what they mean.

Sorry this is going to be a long post:

From our Confessions

But they cite against us certain passages, namely, Matt. 16, 18f : Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; also: I will give unto thee the keys; also John 21, 15: Feed My sheep, and some others. But since this entire controversy has been fully and accurately treated elsewhere in the books of our theologians, and everything cannot be reviewed in this place, we refer to those writings, and wish them to be regarded as repeated. Yet we shall reply briefly concerning the interpretation [of the passages quoted].

23] In all these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of apostles [and does not speak for himself alone, but for all the apostles], as appears from the text itself. For Christ asks not Peter alone, but says: Whom do ye say that I am? And what is here said [to Peter alone] in the singular number: I will give unto thee the keys; and whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc., is elsewhere expressed [to their entire number], in the plural Matt. 18, 18: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc. And in John 20, 23: Whosesoever sins ye remit, etc. These words testify that the keys are given alike to all the apostles and that all the apostles are alike sent forth [to preach].

24] In addition to this, it is necessary to acknowledge that the keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church, as many most clear and firm arguments testify. For Christ, speaking concerning the keys adds, Matt. 18, 19: If two or three of you shall agree on earth, etc. Therefore he grants the keys principally and immediately to the Church, just as also for this reason the Church has principally the right of calling. [For just as the promise of the Gospel belongs certainly and immediately to the entire Church, so the keys belong immediately to the entire Church, because the keys are nothing else than the office whereby this promise is communicated to every one who desires it, just as it is actually manifest that the Church has the power to ordain ministers of the Church. And Christ speaks in these words: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc., and indicates to whom He has given the keys, namely, to the Church: Where two or three are gathered together in My name. Likewise Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the Church, when He says: Tell it unto the Church.]


#18

The Church Fathers said this:

St. John Chrysostom 347 – 407 newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm
*“Upon this rock,” not upon Peter. For He built His Church not upon man, but upon the faith of Peter. But what was his faith? “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” *

St. Hilary of Poitiers newadvent.org/cathen/07349b.htm
*To Peter the Father revealed that he should say, “Thou art the Son of the living God.” Therefore the building of the Church is upon this rock of confession; this faith is the foundation of the Church. *

So you can see how we acknowledge the verse but disagree with its usage.


#19

Are you a Protestant Shibboleth? Because this view of Christ “building his church upon the rock of confession” --not the rock of Peter, the rock, the kepha, being Peter, whom Christ appointed to head his Church, is the most typical stance of Protestants. And it’s a lame one at that.


#20

SHIBBOLETH,

Your statement that Jesus built His Church on the confession of Peter is childish pratter You say the Church was not built on Peter, Cephus ( Aramaic for ROCK, Jesus named Simon Bar Jonah “Cephus” when He first met the fisherman. Later when Cephus was translated into Greek the name became Petros or also ROCK). Why did Jesus rename Simon Bar Jonah? It was the custom of the Jews to give a man a new name when he took on an important new job.

Go to Matt 16: 17 thru 19 and read. Jesus was talking to Peter not all the disciples. He said ,“Thou art Peter (rock) ; and upon this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” How can you misread this?

How Fundamentalists or Lutherans can misread this verse is a mystery to me. It does not even “hint” at Jesus is talking about some “confession”. This is common to Fundamentalists. It is simply an apriori anti-Catholic tenent of their faith. They are trying to downplay the fact that the Bishop of Rome is the leader of the entire Catholic Church. Those people almost hate the Pope. Yes I said “those people”.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.