>>Should we balance this thread with the testimonies of converted priests?<<
Good point... But having read this thread, I don't think there would be much tolerance for it...
Whenever I read a story like this it reminds me NEVER to put my trust in what anyone says... Even if they're a "Southern Baptist Pastor"... Because you never know for sure what they believe...
There are so many fundamental differences between the Southern Baptists and the RCC that one would have to wonder which came first... Rejection of Biblical theology or acceptance of RCC doctrine... I would suspect the former rather than the latter...
Um, I think he concluded that "Biblical theology" and "RCC doctrine" were one and the same thing.
Funny how y'all always say you're in favor of people reading the Bible for themselves, but when they start drawing Catholic conclusions from what they read, well, we can't be having any of that, can we ... ??
Actually, it is more likely that he converted because he ACCEPTED "Biblical theology". The Bible itself explicitly teaches (St. Paul) that it itself is NOT the sole inspired Word of God (i.e. that "sola Scriptura" IS NOT BIBLICAL). Add to that the fact that for four hundred years after the death of Christ, there WAS no Bible.
What was rejected was "Reformation theology".