Posted on 02/07/2015 9:35:40 PM PST by Steelfish
A Protestant Historian Discovers the Catholic Church – Conversion Story of A. David Anders, Ph.D. February 13, 2012
A Protestant Historian Discovers the Catholic Church by A. David Anders, Ph.D.
I grew up an Evangelical Protestant in Birmingham, Alabama. My parents were loving and devoted, sincere in their faith, and deeply involved in our church. They instilled in me a respect for the Bible as the Word of God, and a desire for a living faith in Christ. Missionaries frequented our home and brought their enthusiasm for their work. Bookshelves in our house were filled with theology and apologetics. From an early age, I absorbed the notion that the highest possible calling was to teach the Christian faith. I suppose it is no surprise that I became a Church historian, but becoming a Catholic was the last thing I expected.
My family’s church was nominally Presbyterian, but denominational differences meant very little to us. I frequently heard that disagreements over baptism, the Lord’s Supper, or church government were unimportant as long as one believed the Gospel. By this we meant that one should be “born again,” that salvation is by faith alone, and that the Bible is the sole authority for Christian faith. Our church supported the ministries of many different Protestant denominations, but the one group we certainly opposed was the Catholic Church.
(Excerpt) Read more at chnetwork.org ...
So the mass is not an unbloody sacrifice, it’s a mere representation of Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross?
If that is what you are suggesting, many Catholics would disagree with you. They insist it’s a real sacrifice every time.
He admits he wasn't saved...Didn't you read the article???
Very informative about the pagan symbolism and practices of the Catholic church. Stay vigilant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXFfKmCbq0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQKJJGQHElU
Comical to you. Not to them. These were real scholars who actually spent a lifetime of study, contemplation, and historical research. Their stories real a serious internal struggle.
So instead you have to “guess” that he could not get a job as a historian and instead question his motives. How sad?
You mean converts to Catholics are not like the followers of Moonies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jim Jones, and David Koresh? That’s a compliment.
So now its speculation on how the “First” Christians would or would not recognize the Church? For the first 300 years we had the early Church fathers assemble the books of scripture base on the oral tradition, ritual, and revelation based on infallible Petrine authority and then scripture itself tells us that if all what Christ said and did were written it would exceed the books in the Bible. That Petrine authority did not dissolve sometime during the Reformation. As the author himself notes (assume you read the whole article) he came to the painful realization of the false teaching of Protestants.
John 21:25
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they were written one by one, I suppose that not even the world itself would contain the books written.”
Go figure.
Actually, I quit reading as soon as you insulted me. Dialogue. Try it some time.
Last video for me of the day I have to do some things. Explain some of the catholic traditions, instead of talking in circles, and people who actually follow the holy word and the holy word only will understand you. They are only one that was sinless on earth that was Jesus, they are no queen in heaven. Im sure Mary is in heaven but she was a human and not divine like Christ. They are only God/Yahweh, and you dont have to have a priest absolve your sins or call him father with that said im done discussing this and will never worship idols,statues, or pray to other humans, or do their pagan/ritual practices. Believe what you will thats your right. Laters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diksnv0hDlE
This is typical Bible-Chriitan thinking. Christ established ONE Church, and if you take the time to read (leaving aside for the moment the galaxy of Catholic theologians), the innumerable Protestant theologians, teachers and pastors who converted to Catholicism they will explain all this to you and more. These conversions were not overnight. They were the product of historical scholarship, and intense internal struggles from those who questioned the very rituals and practices you complain of, and then accepted the sacraments and the doctrine and practices of the Church. At the heart and summit of Catholic belief is the Holy Eucharist, apparently even this you question. I am not sure you read the whole article.
Truth from scripture is always an insult to those who refuse to see it.
Plenty of people have posted from the writings of the early church fathers and most all claim 'scripture alone' authority...
You keep missing the point that the books in the Bible did not fall from the skies and self assemble themselves in the order you find them. For some 300 years they were put together by the early Church fathers. This authority was not plucked out of thin air to authenticate the very Word of God.It was under Petrine authority. Go read their writings like St. Irenaeus and others.
This is precisely one of the main reasons why preeminent Protestant theologians converted to Catholicism. Read all of Dr Anders’ soul searching story, if you haven’t done so. The Bible itself tells us that there were many things Christ said that if written down would not fill the whole world. This oral tradition was carried out by and under the authority of ONE Church. This authority did not collapse with the Reformation.
“So the mass is not an unbloody sacrifice, it’s a mere representation of Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross?”
No. The Mass is an unbloody sacrifice RE-presented. It is the same sacrifice as on the Cross - but sacramental in form and a re-presentation of the original.
“If that is what you are suggesting, many Catholics would disagree with you. They insist it’s a real sacrifice every time.”
And it is a real sacrifice - just unbloody and a re-presentation (NOT a representation).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ3goNXz8Jg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uL_IAJWvX0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIKWtd62cAk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTz9RNOrBVk
http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Is%20the%20Eucharist%20a%20True%20Sacrifice.htm
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/03/does-eucharist-re-sacrifice-christ.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC7RPJC4uDA
What blasphemy! What utter contempt for the once for all sacrifice of Christ who now sits at the right hand of the Father.
Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
What do Catholics think? Was Jesus sacrifice not completed and has to be re-presented constantly? Do they think the Father forgets and has to be reminded? Jesus said "do this in REMEMBRANCE of me" He didn't say repeat presenting me over and over.
“What blasphemy!”
None at all. Just the opposite in fact.
“What utter contempt for the once for all sacrifice of Christ who now sits at the right hand of the Father.”
No contempt at all. Jesus died ONCE. His sacrifice can be re-presented many times, however.
“What do Catholics think?”
The Truth.
“Was Jesus sacrifice not completed and has to be re-presented constantly?”
No, it was completed and can be re-presented constantly.
“Do they think the Father forgets and has to be reminded?”
No, they know the Fathers loves His Son and love was the reason for His Son’s sacrifice.
“Jesus said “do this in REMEMBRANCE of me” He didn’t say repeat presenting me over and over.”
If you’re offering His Body and Blood - which is what He told the Apostles to offer - then you are re-presenting His sacrifice over and over. And He wanted it that way.
No, it can not. Jesus said "in remembrance". He didn't say re-present cuz I didn't quite get it right the first time.
>>If you’re offering His Body and Blood - which is what He told the Apostles to offer<<
Say what??? Where did he tell the apostles to offer His body and blood? Book, chapter and verse please.
“No, it can not.”
Clearly it is.
“Jesus said “in remembrance”.”
Yes.
“He didn’t say re-present cuz I didn’t quite get it right the first time.”
No, He said “anamnesis” - and re-presentation is part of that and is only so precisely because Christ got it right when He did it.
“Say what??? Where did he tell the apostles to offer His body and blood? Book, chapter and verse please.”
Ever hear of the Last Supper? Look it up.
anamnesis - a recalling, remembrance, memory
No re-offering the immaculate victim (as Vatican II put it) there.
See here
Yeah, right. And you’re a Biblical expert.
Your argument is with Jesus, not Catholics. If your faith were so secure, you wouldn’t be split in to over three hundred sects all claiming to have reformed the Church.
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.