A Protestant PhD ..... tells why the Catholic Church is the True Faith

  • Thread starter Thread starter brb3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nothing subtle about this attempt to convert us…gotta give you credit for that!
 
Rightlydivide said:
Nothing subtle about this attempt to convert us…gotta give you credit for that!
Click to expand...
We are not trying to convert anyone, Jesus wants you to follow Him as He directed!

**“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” (Mt 28:19)
**

We too are " a small church that follows the Bible", but Jesus gave us so much more than just the Bible, He gave us His One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church!

**“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” (Jn 21:25)
**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
 
brb3 said:
Did you listen to it ---- What’s your assessment of the ‘truth of the matter’ … rightlydivide ?
Click to expand...
I got reprimanded for yelling at the TV.
But in general, he was far far too occupied with the writings of a fallible man Calvin and even Luther.
He also put a lot of weight in the theologians of the 4th and 5th centuries. If you do that, you will be a Catholic or Orthodox. If one operates under the presupposition that the interpretation of the theologians of the 4th and 5th century are the interpretative framework or hermenutical paradigm, then I would probably reach the same conclusions.
On the other hand, he sincerely believes his conclusions. I enjoyed watching it.
 
Rightlydivide said:
If one operates under the presupposition that the interpretation of the theologians of the 4th and 5th century are the interpretative framework or hermenutical paradigm, then I would probably reach the same conclusions.

I enjoyed watching it.
Click to expand...
He started with the Reformationists, then worked back to Augustine, then back to the earliest ECF’s. At no point did he find support for Sola Scriptura.

He concluded Luther & Calvin INVENTED the idea, to support their desire to abandon the Faith of the Fathers.

Glad to see you ‘enjoyed’ it … and could reach similar conclusions. Its time to declare yourself ‘leaning Catholic’, having ‘rightly divided’ the teachings of Christ, as held & taught to his Apostles, and they to their successors.
 
brb3 said:
He started with the Reformationists, then worked back to Augustine, then back to the earliest ECF’s. At no point did he find support for Sola Scriptura.

He concluded Luther & Calvin INVENTED the idea, to support their desire to abandon the Faith of the Fathers.

Glad to see you ‘enjoyed’ it … and could reach similar conclusions. Its time to declare yourself ‘leaning Catholic’, having ‘rightly divided’ the teachings of Christ, as held & taught to his Apostles, and they to their successors.
Click to expand...
I am absolutely not leaning Catholic. But God bless!
 
I would say that if this was as reported, it was time for that person to stop pretending to be Protestant and identify as a Catholic.
 
Rightlydivide said:
I got reprimanded for yelling at the TV.
But in general, he was far far too occupied with the writings of a fallible man Calvin and even Luther.
He also put a lot of weight in the theologians of the 4th and 5th centuries. If you do that, you will be a Catholic or Orthodox. If one operates under the presupposition that the interpretation of the theologians of the 4th and 5th century are the interpretative framework or hermenutical paradigm, then I would probably reach the same conclusions.
On the other hand, he sincerely believes his conclusions. I enjoyed watching it.
Click to expand...
I didn’t yell, but I kept shaking my head in agreement.😃

He focused on Luther and Calvin for two reasons. 1, he was Presbyterian. 2, they were the “Reformers”. If it wasn’t for them, history probably would’ve proven to be much different and you, me and millions and millions of others might have been born Catholic. That’s not to say someone else would not have come along and start their own religions, but the Reformation movement emboldened others to do what Luther and Calvin did in the centuries to come.

It’s kind of ironic to say that if anyone were to look at the 4th and 5th centuries they would be Catholic or Orthodox. Well, what does that tell you? If you go even further back, the more Catholic/Orthodox the Christians look.

I applaud the interview. Anders is extremely intelligent and articulated his points very well.
 
T_More said:
I didn’t yell, but I kept shaking my head in agreement.😃

He focused on Luther and Calvin for two reasons. 1, he was Presbyterian. 2, they were the “Reformers”. If it wasn’t for them, history probably would’ve proven to be much different and you, me and millions and millions of others might have been born Catholic. That’s not to say someone else would not have come along and start their own religions, but the Reformation movement emboldened others to do what Luther and Calvin did in the centuries to come.

It’s kind of ironic to say that if anyone were to look at the 4th and 5th centuries they would be Catholic or Orthodox. Well, what does that tell you? If you go even further back, the more Catholic/Orthodox the Christians look.

I applaud the interview. Anders is extremely intelligent and articulated his points very well.
Click to expand...
Come on in. The waters are warm. Anders and many others like him have swam to the opposite shore … and Christ is waiting there for us with a ‘Eucharistic - shore lunch’.
 
T_More said:
I didn’t yell, but I kept shaking my head in agreement.😃

He focused on Luther and Calvin for two reasons. 1, he was Presbyterian. 2, they were the “Reformers”. If it wasn’t for them, history probably would’ve proven to be much different and you, me and millions and millions of others might have been born Catholic. That’s not to say someone else would not have come along and start their own religions, but the Reformation movement emboldened others to do what Luther and Calvin did in the centuries to come.

It’s kind of ironic to say that if anyone were to look at the 4th and 5th centuries they would be Catholic or Orthodox. Well, what does that tell you? If you go even further back, the more Catholic/Orthodox the Christians look.

I applaud the interview. Anders is extremely intelligent and articulated his points very well.
Click to expand...
I have spent literally years looking further back and no…I* absolutely *do not agree with you. I am surprised if you have looked at it that closely you came to that conclusion.
Were there vestments? No.
Did they use icons or images? No. Eusebius shows us that.
Did the local congregations choose the biships and presbyters? Yes.
Did anyone talk about the Assumption of Mary until a the 4th century when a bishop specifically denies any knowledge of what happened to her? No.
Did they believe in a symbolic Eucharist? No. Just being fair here.
Did they always equate Rome with Peter and Paul and never hint at papal primacy until the third century? Yes.
Did they later in the second century start referring to the brothers of the Lord as his stepbrothers but then develop a cousin theory in the 5th century? Yes.
Did they believe in purgatory? No. Even the Orthodox still do not believe in that.
Did they believe in papal infallibility? No. No one but the Roman Catholics still believe in that.
Did they start baptizing children until the mid 2nd century? No.
Did they hold a belief in the 1000 year reign? Yes they did. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia tells you that.
Did they believe in salvation by faith? Yes they did but that does not last too long either. After Clement and Polycarp you find very little about that anymore.
But it sounds like you looked into it…
 
Rightlydivide said:
I have spent literally years looking further back and no…I* absolutely *do not agree with you. I am surprised if you have looked at it that closely you came to that conclusion.
Were there vestments? No.
Did they use icons or images? No. Eusebius shows us that.
Did the local congregations choose the biships and presbyters? Yes.
Did anyone talk about the Assumption of Mary until a the 4th century when a bishop specifically denies any knowledge of what happened to her? No.
Did they believe in a symbolic Eucharist? No. Just being fair here.
Did they always equate Rome with Peter and Paul and never hint at papal primacy until the third century? Yes.
Did they later in the second century start referring to the brothers of the Lord as his stepbrothers but then develop a cousin theory in the 5th century? Yes.
Did they believe in purgatory? No. Even the Orthodox still do not believe in that.
Did they believe in papal infallibility? No. No one but the Roman Catholics still believe in that.
Did they start baptizing children until the mid 2nd century? No.
Did they hold a belief in the 1000 year reign? Yes they did. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia tells you that.
Did they believe in salvation by faith? Yes they did but that does not last too long either. After Clement and Polycarp you find very little about that anymore.
But it sounds like you looked into it…
Click to expand...
I was referring to the writings. But thanks for the floor exercise.
 
And to make sure I am clear, I am glad you are making that swim. You will have gone from something dangerous to something…I simply disagree with in some issues. Blessings on your journey.
 
Mark77 said:
We are not trying to convert anyone, Jesus wants you to follow Him as He directed!

**“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” (Mt 28:19)
**

We too are " a small church that follows the Bible", but Jesus gave us so much more than just the Bible, He gave us His One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church!

**“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” (Jn 21:25)
**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
Click to expand...
  1. Wait a minute. A PROTESTANT who tells us why The Catholic Church is correct? Isn’t he, therefore, by definition, not Protestant? IF I posted, “here’s a Catholic who disagrees with The Catholic Church but agrees with everything the LDS teaches and claims” would you agree it is accurate to say, "A Catholic Tells us why the LDS is the True Faith?’’
  2. I didn’t go to the link (such is problematic here at work) but the two verses you quoted to not state that The Catholic Church - specifically and exclusively - is the sole authority, the sole interpreter, the sole arbiter, infallible, unaccountable, exempt from norming, and that whatever it alone says - perpetually - is just to be accepted with docility, as Jesus speaking. When you find that verse, post it. Until then, I find the remarkable, accountability-evading claim of self for self to be less than compelling - just as you do when the same rubric is used in all the cults.
.
 
Rightlydivide said:
And to make sure I am clear, I am glad you are making that swim. You will have gone from something dangerous to something…I simply disagree with in some issues. Blessings on your journey.
Click to expand...
Understood. Thanks. And peace to you.
 
Rightlydivide said:
I got reprimanded for yelling at the TV.
But in general, he was far far too occupied with the writings of a fallible man Calvin and even Luther.
He also put a lot of weight in the theologians of the 4th and 5th centuries. If you do that, you will be a Catholic or Orthodox.
Click to expand...
Or, in my case, Anglican.
If one operates under the presupposition that the interpretation of the theologians of the 4th and 5th century are the interpretative framework or hermenutical paradigm, then I would probably reach the same conclusions.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how one can believe in the doctrine of the Trinity and not work under that presupposition. Of course the 4-5th-century theologians were not infallible, but if their general theological approach was wrong then we should probably all be JWs or Unitarians (or Jews, which I would prefer to either of those alternatives).

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top