I guess i probably do not represent what you expect Protestants to be very well. I have heard the name Francis Chan but until yesterday I never heard him speak. When I first listend to the short quip you gave I found it confusing and did not find his appearance and delivery very attractive. When I listened to the whole presentation that did not contain any visual aspects I more easily listened to his words. From my perspective I heard him proposing that what the church should be and how we should relate to God, church attendance and others, to be very close to what my church preaches and endeavors to practice. To put it bluntly, I never felt he was describing a Catholic Church at all. When he got to the part where he was describing Communion one could perceive Catholic overtones. I was amazed how ignorant he admitted to be about the ancient Church and it’s practice. I can see how Catholics listening to this would get their hopes up about his conversion to Catholicism but I seriously doubt from what I heard that he really understands the Catholic Eucharist.Listened to the entire thing. He said exactly what i thought he would say.
Chan is one of a growing movement that is appalled by celebrity preachers who get paid very well to preach the gospel. David Platt is another one. I would recommend his book “Radical” to any Christian who is serious about living out their faith. I doubt Catholics would have much bad to say about it.This man has a heart for God. Sounds a lot like St. Francis of Assisi. He is literally trying to walk in the footsteps of Jesus.
He is a relative newcomer to “Christian Fame”, I never heard of him until an Anglican friend posted this video. What I have read, Mr Chan does have an MDiv, so, he has been educated. This education makes for a fertile field for the Holy Spirit!Francis Chan
Probably because he went to John MacArthur’s Bible college. I think MacArthur is ok and means well, but I can’t imagine his college really teaching any version of church history that highlights the Roman Catholic heritage in a good light.I was amazed how ignorant he admitted to be about the ancient Church and it’s practice.
From John MacArthur’s institution. That has to be taken into account.So I was a bit surprised at his ignorance of the liturgy as well, considering he holds a master’s degree in the field, apparently.
Not exactly.Well… the fact he acknowledges that for 1500 years the church believed that communion was the body and blood of Christ and not just as a symbol as is the case for the last 500 years after the reformation…seeing there was only the Catholic (and later Orthodox) both who believe it IS the body and blood of Christ…what other church could he be talking about.
… we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament . This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body , etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. [55]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_8_holysupper.php#para55) And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but [56]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_8_holysupper.php#para56) is truly changed into flesh .
Thank you for being charitable. As to him " coming home", not sure…for as I listened to His entire “sermon”, and his emotional plea at the communion, Catholicism invalidates the whole thing, for he must realize the vanity of his consecration (or lack of it), one that a Catholic could never partake of, also being against his plea of a universal ecclesia, body at communion.Thanks for posting! I loved Francis Chan before becoming Catholic. I’ll be praying that he comes home!