a former Evangelical "born again" explains why Protestantism isn't true

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
This fella, wow! Please take time to listen. He explains the faith (Roman Catholicism) so well and very easy to understand, why he left his Protestant beliefs.

Ask yourself, by whose authority do you believe what you do? Jesus didn't leave a book as our authority.

One of David's soft spoken comments, NO where in his writings does Martin Luther give proof from from God of his new teaching, Martin Luther invented "Sola Scriptura."

The fact is Our Lord imparted His authority to the Apostles (Matt 28:16-20).

Dr. David Anders was a Presbyterian/Calvin historian who came to realize in his studies, one by one, the Protestant heresies are are not true. My Youtube on my PC isn't working so this is an archived audio but nice, you are able to concentrate on what David is saying or if you like, listen while you view something else on your computer.

~ ~ ~

audio library at EWTN
#18...is David's conversion story on the Journey Home with Marcus Grodi
#13...is an answer caller's questions session for David on the Journey Home with Marcus
Grodi.

www.ewtn.com...



Matt 28:16-20
[16] And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by colbe
This fella, wow! Please take time to listen. He explains the faith (Roman Catholicism) so well and very easy to understand, why he left his Protestant beliefs.

Ask yourself, by whose authority do you believe what you do? Jesus didn't leave a book as our authority.

One of David's soft spoken comments, NO where in his writings does Martin Luther give proof from from God of his new teaching, Martin Luther invented "Sola Scriptura."

The fact is Our Lord imparted His authority to the Apostles (Matt 28:16-20).

Dr. David Anders was a Presbyterian/Calvin historian who came to realize in his studies, one by one, the Protestant heresies are are not true. My Youtube on my PC isn't working so this is an archived audio but nice, you are able to concentrate on what David is saying or if you like, listen while you view something else on your computer.

~ ~ ~

audio library at EWTN
#18...is David's conversion story on the Journey Home with Marcus Grodi
#13...is an answer caller's questions session for David on the Journey Home with Marcus
Grodi.

www.ewtn.com...



Matt 28:16-20
[16] And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.


No takers, I am sad. Darn.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 


I'm not a fan of organized religion, but I must say, there is no such thing as purgatory, and Mary is not going to save anyone no matter how many times anyone says "hail Mary".

Try checking out Angelica Zambrano's testimonies.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   
I can't watch your video, sorry, but I'll add my personal perspective to it.

I was a United Methodist for about ten years, but had felt a pull to the Catholic church even before that, when I would have classified myself as a "none". A few years ago, I began to be disillusioned with my church because it seemed more like a social club that changed with the times in an effort to stay "popular", I started doing some reading and research on the early church (first five centuries or so) and came to the conclusion that "real" Christianity is buried in there someplace.

I stumbled across Paleo-orthodoxy after that research:


Paleo-orthodoxy sees the essentials of Christian theology in the consensus of the old church before the schism between the Orthodox Church and the Roman-Catholic Church (the East-West Schism of 1054) and before the separation of Protestantism from the Catholic Church (the Protestant Reformation of 1517), described in the canon of Vincent of Lérins as "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus" ("What [is believed] everywhere, always and by everyone"). (Source)

While I thought that theology (which was started by some Methodists, ironically,) was along the lines with what I'd concluded, it's not a religion, per se, so when I relocated to another city in 2011, I decided to give the Catholic Church a try.

I converted in April, 2012, and for the past year, I've never felt more spiritually alive. The Roman Catholic Church has its share of problems, no doubt, and there are points of theology that I'm not on board with, but the church provides the framework for daily life with God unlike anything I've experienced. Resources such as the Liturgy of the Hours, the Rosary and Eucharistic Adoration, most commonly used by monks or nuns, are available to anyone and really help one stay connected, as opposed to the "show up for an hour on Sunday and hope some of it sticks" approach of my old church.

It's not for everyone, but after almost a year, I'm thankful that I went through this process, and thank you for your thread and the opportunity to contribute my own experience.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Thanks for sharing your journey!

I had never heard of paleo-orthodoxy before, but I do remember the "McCotterite" church I attended many years ago, where the emphasis was on returning to the kind of Christianity as practiced in the Book of Acts. In the end, the Great Commission International took over and it became a cult.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


adjensen,
I loved your testimony. What a grace given and received!! Your Methodist background, MO, I think most all Methodists will convert at the Great Warning. My old neighbors were Methodists, very dear. The
husband attended a Methodist retreat modeled after the Catholic Cursillo.

You know, being fairly new to the faith, it's so wonderful, Catholicism follows the Apostles, we don't get to decide.
It's not up to us. Try to read up on why the Church teaches what she does concerning the things you don't understand yet or don't agree with... Read the Early Church Fathers and the saint's quotes.

If a person disagrees and doesn't accept the teachings of the Church, they're Protestant again, a sometime Catholic, a Cafeteria Catholic.


love,

colbe



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Don't you want to go to Heaven? I added the in stars.

Catechism of the Catholic Church ~

IN BRIEF
Paragraph 1711 Endowed with a spiritual soul, with intellect and with free will, the human person is from his very conception ordered to God and destined for eternal beatitude *blessedness*. He pursues his perfection in "seeking and loving what is true and good"



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonders
there is no such thing as purgatory,

Then how do you explain ghosts?

Mary is not going to save anyone no matter how many times anyone says "hail Mary".

Jesus is the only saviour .. BUT ... He said to pray for each other and He said that helps people. So yes, asking others to pray for us could indeed bring graces that help us not to fall into sin. The 'hail mary' that people say is all scriptural ... it is a person addressing Mary and asking for her to pray for them. It's just that simple. (and yes, the bible shows that people who have gone on before us do indeed know what is happening on earth.)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by colbe

The fact is Our Lord imparted His authority to the Apostles (Matt 28:16-20).


And neither Protestants nor Catholics follow what they taught.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by colbe

The fact is Our Lord imparted His authority to the Apostles (Matt 28:16-20).


And neither Protestants nor Catholics follow what they taught.

... and neither does a cult in Florida whose leader doesn't follow what Christ taught, regarding humility and honesty. I'd say that's a heck of a lot worse.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by colbe

The fact is Our Lord imparted His authority to the Apostles (Matt 28:16-20).


And neither Protestants nor Catholics follow what they taught.

... and neither does a cult in Florida whose leader doesn't follow what Christ taught, regarding humility and honesty. I'd say that's a heck of a lot worse.


Let's stay on topic.

The apostles preached Acts 2:38. The true Church today must also preach Acts 2:38. Neither Protestants, nor Catholics preach what the apostles did. Neither are the true Church.

The person spoken of in the first post only traded one false religion for another false religion.
edit on 23-1-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew
The apostles preached Acts 2:38. The true Church today must also preach Acts 2:38. Neither Protestants, nor Catholics preach what the apostles did. Neither are the true Church.

The Apostles didn't "preach Acts 2:38" -- that was written after the fact.

You hang your salvation on one passage in one book, written after the fact, and which is open to interpretation. Meanwhile, you ignore the teachings of Christ and ignore the lying and fraud committed by anyone who agrees with your mis-assessment of "Acts 2:38", which is another act of dishonesty and deliberate setting aside of the teaching of Christ and his Apostles.

The "true church" has existed since the time of Pentecost, it wasn't invented by a liar and a fraud in Florida in the 20th Century.

Stop trying to derail every thread in the Religion forum with your "Catholics and Protestants are bad" cult-induced brainwashings.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

The Apostles didn't "preach Acts 2:38" -- that was written after the fact.


What is your proof that they did not preach Acts 2:38.
edit on 23-1-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

The Apostles didn't "preach Acts 2:38" -- that was written after the fact.


What is your proof that they did not preach Acts 2:38.

Which Apostle wrote the book of Acts? (Hint: none of them.) And when did this person write the book of Acts? (Hint: decades after Pentecost.)

So how could an Apostle "preach Acts 2:38"? Peter was probably already dead when that book was written.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 


Think i need that disseminating please - do you do "religion for beginners"?


As you yourself said, Jesus left no book - therefore how do we know Jesus said anything to the Apostles? All we have to go on is the bible, which wasn't written until decades after the death of Jesus.

My personal belief is that Jesus wouldn't subscribe to any organised religion. Either God is everywhere (and therefore no need for organised religion) or God is nowhere (and therefore no need for organised religion). Which leaves a dilemma for the Church...........



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Which Apostle wrote the book of Acts? (Hint: none of them.) And when did this person write the book of Acts? (Hint: decades after Pentecost.)

So how could an Apostle "preach Acts 2:38"? Peter was probably already dead when that book was written.


The book of Acts being written after is not proof that Peter did not preach what is recorded in Acts 2:38.
edit on 23-1-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew
The book of Acts being written after is not proof that Peter did not preach what is recorded in Acts 2:38.

No, but neither it is proof that he did say those words, nor that he meant them in the way that your cult interprets them. There are plenty of contrarian arguments, the primary one being that it means "by the authority of Christ", as that is used elsewhere in the New Testament. But you base your "salvation by works, and works alone" theology on a text written and maintained by the Catholic church, supplemented by a known Medieval fraud, the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, which was created by some Jews to argue against Christianity.

Combined with the lunacy of thinking that God's plan was derailed within fifty years of Christ's death, only brought back to life by people in the 20th Century, it's clear that only someone delusional, elitist or brainwashed would think it true.

The Catholics and Protestants may be wrong on a plethora of issues, but not on something as fundamental as a rejection of your "salvation by works and works alone."



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

No, but neither it is proof that he did say those words,


You start to run into problems when you throw out books/scriptures without any evidence to do so.


Originally posted by adjensen

nor that he meant them in the way that your cult interprets them.


The Church is not a cult. Acts 2:38 can not be interpreted any other way.


Originally posted by adjensen

But you base your "salvation by works, and works alone" theology on a text written and maintained by the Catholic church, supplemented by a known Medieval fraud, the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, which was created by some Jews to argue against Christianity.


Salvation is by grace through faith, not of "works alone", nor by your repeating a few words (which btw is works alone based salvation). Again, there is much evidence against the words "Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" being in Matthew.


Originally posted by adjensen

Combined with the lunacy of thinking that God's plan was derailed within fifty years of Christ's death, only brought back to life by people in the 20th Century, it's clear that only someone delusional, elitist or brainwashed would think it true.


God's plan has never been derailed. There have been followers of the apostles' doctrine since the Church began.
edit on 23-1-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

No, but neither it is proof that he did say those words,


You start to run into problems when you throw out books/scriptures without any evidence to do so.

You mean like how your cult throws out relevant passages of Matthew, because they prefer their fictional "Hebrew Book of Matthew", a demonstrable fraud.


God's plan has never been derailed. There have been followers of the apostles' doctrine since the Church began.

Prove it.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

You mean like how your cult throws out relevant passages of Matthew, because they prefer their fictional "Hebrew Book of Matthew", a demonstrable fraud.


Again the Church is not a cult. There is actual evidence to backup my teaching on Matthew 28:18-20. There is no evidence that Acts 2:38 has been added or changed.


Originally posted by adjensen

Prove it.


Here is a video.






new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join