Featured A Book Review: Born Fundamentalist - Born Again Catholic.

First, I agree. Being born into a fundamentalist family does not make one 'born again' anymore than being born into a Catholic family. I know many Catholics who were brought up to 'receive the sacraments' and then after confirmation do not darken the doors of a church of any kind or show any fruits of the Spirit. They are for all intents and purposes 'baptized pagans'. If they never repent of their sins and put faith in Christ they have are not Christians.
. Here is some commentary of interest I learned from a friend that converted from an evangelical view to one of Real Presence.


The Catholic interpretation makes sense, but it’s a shocking one. We think that this lengthy passage is about the Eucharist, and that Jesus Christ literally means that we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood in Communion. This teaching, radical to twenty first-century ears, was no less radical to first-century ears, and even many of Jesus’ own disciples stopped following Him upon hearing it.

Protestants typically disagree with this interpretation, arguing that Jesus’ commands that we should eat His Flesh and drink His Blood are just metaphors. Often, both sides are so busy debating the credibility of the Catholic interpretation that neither stop to seriously ask, “Does the Protestant interpretation make any sense?” The obvious question is if Jesus is speaking metaphorically, what’s it a metaphor for? What is Jesus actually saying?

Remember that Jesus’ words spark a strong reaction: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” […] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.” (John 6:61, 66). So whatever Jesus is saying here is so shocking that it’s actually costing Him disciples. To my knowledge, this is the only time we hear of Him losing disciples over something that He’s said. So just what was this shocking teaching?

The Protestant answer is usually something along the lines of: “believe in Me.” So, for example, Matthew Henry’s commentary on John 6:52-59 says,

The flesh and blood of the Son of man, denote the Redeemer in the nature of man; Christ and him crucified, and the redemption wrought out by him, with all the precious benefits of redemption; pardon of sin, acceptance with God, the way to the throne of grace, the promises of the covenant, and eternal life. These are called the flesh and blood of Christ, because they are purchased by the breaking his body, and the shedding of his blood. Also, because they are meat and drink to our souls. Eating this flesh and drinking this blood mean believing in Christ. We partake of Christ and his benefits by faith. The soul that rightly knows its state and wants, finds whatever can calm the conscience, and promote true holiness, in the redeemer, God manifest in the flesh.

Is that a plausible interpretation?

Remember, we’re talking about disciples here, not casual listeners who are tuning in for the first time. And this account in John 6 comes directly on the heels of some other shocking teachings from Jesus. For example, take John 5:15-18

The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. And this was why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working still, and I am working.” This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.

 

(cont.)
Jesus goes on to declare Himself the One who will judge the world at the end of time, and talks about the necessity of believing in Him for salvation (John 5:21-23):

For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

Jesus then explains that He’s the one that the Bible is about: “You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. […] If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me.” (John 5:39-40, 46).

And we’re to believe that these disciples were okay with the claims to divinity, to the breaking the Sabbath, to the declarations of equality with God, to the claim to be the Eternal Judge, but then heard a generic “believe in Me” message, and suddenly freaked out?

So, instead, you end up with Protestant exegetes explaining that it wasn’t really a hard teaching. Rather, people just left Christ because they misunderstood Him. When Jesus’ disciples declare His a “hard teaching,” Calvin says:

On the contrary, it was in their hearts, and not in the saying, that the harshness lay. But out of the word of God the reprobate are thus accustomed to form stones to dash themselves upon, and when, by their hardened obstinacy, they rush against Christ, they complain that his saying is harsh, which ought rather to have softened them.

Or take Barclay’s bizarre claim that this wasn’t a hard teaching to Christ’s original listeners, and that they didn’t take Him literally:

To most of us this is a very difficult passage. It speaks in language and moves in a world of ideas which are quite strange to us and which may seem even fantastic and grotesque. But to those who heard it first, it was moving among familiar ideas which went back to the very childhood of the race.

These ideas would be quite normal to anyone brought up in ancient sacrifice. The animal was very seldom burned entire. Usually only a token part was burned on the altar, although the whole animal was offered to the god. Part of the flesh was given to the priests as their perquisite; and part to the worshipper to make a feast for himself and his friends within the temple precincts. At that feast the god himself was held to be a guest. More, once the flesh had been offered to the god, it was held that he had entered into it; and therefore when the worshipper ate it he was literally eating the god. When people rose from such a feast they went out, as they believed, literally god-filled. We may think of it as idolatrous worship, we may think of it as a vast delusion; yet the fact remains these people went out quite certain that in them there was now the dynamic vitality of their god. To people used to that kind of experience a section like this presented no difficulties at all. […] They would not read phrases like eating Christ’s body and drinking his blood with crude and shocked literalism.

That interpretation is, of course, directly contradicted by the shocked reactions of Christ’s original listeners. Likewise, when the Jews objected, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52), the Enduring Word commentary explains it away by saying:



It’s probable that the Jewish leaders willfully misunderstood Jesus at this point. He just explained that the bread was His body that would be given as a sacrifice for the life of the world (John 6:51). They willfully twisted His words to imply a bizarre cannibalism.

But in fact, this wasn’t the crowd’s initial objection. It’s only after Jesus stressed the physicality of His Eucharistic teaching that, on the third time, they finally took Him literally. It wasn’t like they rushed to the most literal interpretation: they interpreted Him metaphorically twice before finally taking Him literally. And it was only the first two interpretations that Christ corrected. The third time, after they take Him literally (John 6:52), Jesus responds with even more graphically literal language (John 6:53-58).

If the crowds were simply mistaken – if Jesus was just saying “believe in Me,” a message He’d presented countless times to His disciples – why would He take absolutely no steps to clarify their confusion, and in fact speak in such a way that seems designed to intentionally mislead them further?

The standard Protestant interpretation just doesn’t work. It doesn’t make a lot of sense of why Jesus would choose the metaphor of bread and then switch halfway through to the metaphor of meat (meataphor?), nor why Jesus seems to correct figurative interpretations of His words, nor why the crowds of His own disciples would revolt at such an innocuous teaching and abandon Him, nor why He would let them go without clarifying that He actually meant something uncontroversial.
'

 

Ok, here is what I think you might be missing. John 6:23-53 - a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." The disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." In fact, many of His disciples departed from Him. So what does Jesus do? Did He say, 'Oh, wait, you misunderstood what I was saying! Come back! I was only talking about believing on Me for everlasting life?

John 6:54-58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat.

Matt. 24:38; John 13:18 - for example, the word "phago" is used here too, and it means to literally gnaw or chew meat. "Phago" is never used metaphorically in Greek. There is not one verse in Scripture where "phago" is used symbolically, and yet this must be your argument if you are going to deny the Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Orthodox, etc. understanding of Jesus' words.

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body).

John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; Luke 3:6; 24:39 - these are other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink[

 

Compare this passage with Romans 8, talking about living according to the Spirit, not the Flesh. That’s not a denial of the Incarnation, or a condemnation of the flesh, but of our sinful natures, or living like animals. (I think most evangelicals agree with this point, since the alternative is dualism).

 

Good points!

I really appreciate someone like you who is willing to take the time to read a book that was written as an explanation to why someone who was raised fundamentalist and surrounded by evangelical friends and family (his parents both taught at Moody Bible Institute) and about why he became a Catholic. In my opinion, Currie presents a very lucid, systematic, and intelligible account of the reasons for his conversion to what he believes is the ancient Church that Christ founded. Whether or not you agree with his reasons for conversion you will have an understanding of what the actual doctrines of the Catholic Church are and what they are not.

Personally, I am on this board to learn, and I am not here to try to convince anyone to convert to Catholicism but I hope people will understand WHY I left the Baptist church I was a long-time member of and became a Catholic. It is often frustrating when I read the usual anti-Catholic attacks and am told that I cannot possibly believe what the Catholic Church teaches and still be a Christian. One board member will undoubtedly post that the Catholic Church has never repudiated Trent and therefore is a Cult. I highly respect your impute and viewpoints. Thanks for this thread.

 

Greetings brother!

I have had long conversations with Catholics over the years. Know this one truth as you spend your time trying to reason with them from the scriptures. Nothing you present, no matter how obviously sound, no matter how explicitly stated in the Apostle's letters, will matter to a Catholic who has embraced the RCC as the final authority over all scripture application matters. It is not a normal debate between brethren whom both agree the scripture is the final authority. With a devout Catholic it is the RCC which holds the final authority on the doctrinal applications of the Apostle's letters. Thus, if you think you might change their minds by laying out scripture, it is a futile endeavor. However, if you engage for the sake of those who want to learn and who want to study to show themselves approved unto God, to keep others from falling for false doctrines, then may God bless your time and work. Remember, A devout Catholic cannot even consider the RCC interpretations can be wrong. So even when the Catholic says they are not trying to convert anyone (and I have heard this many times) then what are they doing? They are not trying to test their own beliefs with scripture, in case they could be wrong. No, their beliefs are not up for debate as though they could be wrong. So yes, they are trying to gain converts. At the least, they are trying to learn the scripture you use so they may use the debate against others in their future debates.

Blessings!

 

Scripture as the final authority: Catholics agree with Baptist and other evangelicals that Scripture is a “standard of truth”—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.

“Word” in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah:

“For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’” (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 NIV)

In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity” (Acts 15:28–29).

In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around “through the cities,” and Scripture says that “they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

And, I am not here trying to covert ANY of you. Believe me, I was once just like you, Steaver, I just took my Baptist blinders off

 

BTW, Steaver, more and more evangelicals are willing to 'take the blinders off' and at least look at the Catholic biblical perspective. I'm betting you have not ever bothered to pick up the book we are discussing or even know the background of the Currie's and their depth of involvement at Moody Bible Institute.

I attended Biola University. At the time I attended the student body would have never considered that the Catholic or Orthodox Christian positions. Take a look at the following article and tell me if blinders are not being lifted and at least many students are willing to at least look at the bilbe without the preconceived biases they were raised with: Biola University Finishes Probe of Orthodox Faculty

 

Greeting Walter,

If I only had a nickel for every time my Catholic debate friends have provided an article which would "change my mind". That is if, according to them, I was "intellectually honest" of course. One of my Catholic friends that I have been debating for the past year now or more has given me no less than 100 articles, which I have always proven why they were wrong, always being riddled with contradictions and straw man arguments. But he keeps on giving me just one more article or Catholic you tube preacher believing that this one will ultimately remove my "blinders".

Your first response above supports what I said, Nothing presented, no matter how obviously sound, no matter how explicitly stated in the Apostle's letters, will matter to a Catholic who has embraced the RCC as the final authority over all scripture application or interpretations. Now, who has put on blinders? If you take the position, just as Jews do with Judaism, that the RCC cannot be wrong on these matters, that my friend is a blinder.

You use to be a Baptist. Can you share the time you became born again?

Blessings!

 

I have shared this with you on plenty on occasions. You have already been asked that if you 'haven't read the book being discussed, please don't get involved in the discussion' by the person who posted this thread. It isn't an article, but I know you would never read it. It's about a fundamentalist Christian who 'changed his mind' and is very convincing. You aren't interested in that, you are only interested in bashing Catholic Christians. BTW, just for your info, I hold the same position on 'being born again' as the Orthodox Christian professors that teach a Biola University (a fundamentalist university) when I was a rabidly anti-Catholic bigot, just like you! Again, I used to believe in the same position you have on 'being born again' as you believe is found in John. I put my faith and trust in Jesus Christ shed blood on the cross, repented of my sins, just like you, and just like I have continued to do as a Catholic Christian. I just believe the Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox, and countless other Christians are correct in holding to the Apostolic teachings of the bible and not yours. Tell, me Steave, when I changed my position on Baptism, did I 'lose my salvation' like many Freewill Baptists believe? Or, maybe you believe that if I was 'really actually 'born again' to begin with, I would never have left to become an 'evil Catholic' and would return to 'some form of orthodox Christianity'? I have been a Catholic for many years since I joined this forum as a Baptist and nothing has convinced me to return to the Baptist church or Ev. Free (like you if I'm not mistaken) or any other Evangelical flavor.

 

That is not what he said. He said, "Respectfully unless you have this book please keep comments and opinions to only what is said by us in the thread". Which I have done.

I have read many of these, as I have read many of ones when the Catholic "changes their mind" and leaves the RCC. While these are entertaining, when debating doctrines I always test everything with scripture defining scripture. No personal interpretations.

Wow! Where did that come from? Hope you are not an angry Catholic.

That is fine, but I wasn't asking for any Church position, I was asking about your own personal experience of being born again, your testimony.

Not sure I follow. Are you saying you now believe you wasn't born again before being a Catholic?

Could anything convince you? Do you think the RCC could be wrong on some doctrines?

Blessings!

 

Steaver:

Hmmmm, which 'books' have you read? Please be specific. You only mentioned 'articles' in past posts, never 'books'. Certainly have not read the one being discussed, although you were asked NOT TO COMMENT if you weren't going to bother to read it.

No, I'm not an angry Catholic, I just have read you posts to other Catholics and myself and know your tactics. No, I have posted my testimony on many occasions on this board. You have read it and commented in the past. Would you like me to re-post it?

'Not sure I follow. Are you saying you now believe you wasn't born again before being a Catholic?' Never said that. I believe I was 'born again' in the Baptist interpretation of John, BUT, I believe EXACTLY what the the Catholic Church, Anglican Church, Orthodox Church and many evangelicals believe John meant now.

Could anything convince me? I am on this board TO LEARN, and although I doubt I would ever be convinced by an anti-Catholic bigot, I do appreciate reading posts such as '37818', NT Christian, EWF and others who are not full of pride and contempt. For years I debated DHK. ONLY once did he ever come close to admitting he was wrong. Donald mentioned ONCE he may have been mistaken and that there 'may be thousands' of Catholic priests (other than Anglican converts) that there were married in the many, many Eastern Rites of the Holy Catholic Church (not speaking of Eastern Orthodox) and still would NOT apologize for calling me a liar and being ignorant. Could it be your are wrong about some Catholic doctrines?
Blessings!

 

You repeated this for the second time and for the second time I will provide for you the truth. 37818 said, "Respectfully unless you have this book please keep comments and opinions to ONLY WHAT IS SAID BY US in the thread" (Emphasis mine). And again, this is what I have done. And note, it is you who began a conversation with me.

"Tactics?" If I have ever "bashed" you or another Catholic please provide a quote of mine and I will humbly apologize. If you have no example, then it would be Christian for you to apologize to me for the unfounded accusation.

I don't know what this means.

You could refresh my memory. I believe any Christian can recall when they became born again. Don't think that is something that can be misconstrued. Like Paul said, "Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?"

Absolutely! How about you? Could the RCC be wrong about some of their declarations on Scripture interpretations?

Blessings!