Former Protestant Pastor Helps Shepherd Catholic Converts

I don't know this man and have never heard of him until now.

But Jesus had a problem with Judas. Judas being taught by Jesus went against all Jesus said and did. What Judas did says nothing about Jesus and what He stood for. But it does say something about Judas.

I would like to know who is living for Jesus Christ because of Currie's life. If nobody is living for Jesus Christ because of my life then I am fruitless.

 

Bob said --

Let me guess.

All you can hear is "yada-yada-yada-something-bad-about-Catholics"!!

Why does that not surpise me!

Like the Jews that could only hear "yada-yaday-something-bad-about-jews" whenever Christ Spoke.

They turned a blind eye to the gospel - ignoring the "details" IN the message - they could only say "you hurt my feelings".

Case closed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

When Popes succeeding their successors it was at times via "assassination" or "Mob violence" or "Nepotism" or "bribery" according to Catholic Digest's Fr. Ken Ryan.

But ultimately - Emperor Sigismund - simply deposed ALL THREE reigning Papal LINES and established HIS OWN council appointing HIS OWN Pope to replace all three existing LINES.

It is admirable that Carson will hold this up as the glorious example and contrast it to the way that the Baptists elect their association presidents.

I am amazed that blind devotion could even do it.

But of course in these "details" Carson is probably only reading "yada-yada-something-bad-about-Catholics".

In Christ,

Bob

 

In order to be Baptist in more than just name, a local visible church must practice and teach local autonomy. Does this mean they do not from time to time enjoy fellowship meetings? No. But not one of these meetings have an authority over any other local visible body. Where the Bible speaks and men of this association speak contrary, the true baptist congregation will ignore the men. Where the Bible speaks, Christ speaks and so speaks the head of each local visible Baptist church.

This is the example found in Acts 15.

Bro. Dallas

 

I realize you believe this, but exactly the opposite is true. Look at Hebrews 8:5 --

Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

We are told here that the religion set up in Judaism is the EXACT COPY of that which is in Heaven. That is why every detail had to be minutely correct.

Now think with me....

IF this is true, then this heavenly worship of God has existed in timeless eternity from the beginning of time right on up to now...right?

We see further evidence of this in Revelations where John the Beloved sees his vision of heaven some 40 years after the Resurrection. Instead of seeing the Baptist or Presbyterian or Episcopalian or Methodist or Seventh Day Adventist form of worship, he sees in Heaven a worship which is distinctly JEWISH!!!

Complete with elders, priests, incense, ceremonial robes and other trappings of liturgical worship.

Now YOU sir, have the problem, for since this IS the worship of Heaven, then by what right do you represent Heaven in a way that is not congruous with the Bible?

Hmmmmmmmmm????

It is the Catholic Faith which is that Faith that continues the heavenly worship. We see this from the beginning when Jesus changed the Passover to the Eucharistic Meal ("this IS my Body....this Is my Blood"). You cannot escape the fact that this change took place during the Passover. Do you think that was just a coincidence? Hardly.

And further on, we see that there is a rite of covenant initition which replaces circumcision....i.e. baptism. As before, the Jews of the Old Covenant were circumcized into that covenant, so now we see them, in the book of Acts, submitting to baptism in order to switch from the Old to the New Covenant.

And yet further, we see that the priesthood of Old Covenant Judaism continues, for Jesus, the man, now takes the place of the Jewish high priest and becomes the eternal Great High Priest in the heavens. He further extends and continues the mediatorial priesthood on earth by giving the apostles an IMMENSE AUTHORITY IN HIM i.e., the authority to forgive men their sins. That was previously vested in the mediatorial priesthood of the Levites and was accompanied by sacrifices. Now it is given to the apostles and is accompanied by THE sacrifice --- the Lamb of God Himself.

The OT Jewish religion doesn't continue?

Au contraire mon frere, it indeed continues, but it continues now in fulfillment whereas before it was a rite which prophesied and looked forward to Messiah.

Cordially in Christ through the Theotokos,

Brother Ed

 

The entire earthly system of the priesthood was abolished according to Hebrews 7.

In Hebrews 8:4 we see the statement that Christ's NEW system of priesthood has no place for priests on earth "Now IF He were on earth He would NOT be a priest AT ALL".

Instead of arguing the "continued" offering of the sacrifice - the book of Hebrews argues the "ONCE FOR ALL TIME" offering of the ONE sacrifice in Hebrews 10. Instead of a continual offering taking place through a priesthood on earth - Hebrews presence a "ONCE for ALL TIME" offering - done by Christ ALONE.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hence the "problem" for any Bible-believing fundamentalist pastor seeking to become Catholic.

They would have to give up the "ONCE for ALL time" doctrine of Hebrews 10 and exchange it for the "bread-is-God" views of the Eucharist.

They would have to give up the doctrine on th "change of LEVITICAL priesthood" in fact the "END" of it - in Hebrews 7.

They would have to embrace the heretic-burning theology used in the dark ages.

They would have to settle for a view of Genesis 1-8 that turns the Bible details on the creation and fall of mankind from "fact" to "myth".

Hence the question - how many had ALREADY given up on some of this PRIOR to choosing to become Catholic?

IN Christ,

Bob

 

I could and would heartily Amen this but you don't mean the last sentence. The church is not the Pope. The church is not only made up of the ruling presbytery. The church is local and visible and is made up of local and visible immersed believers.

I give you scripture:

If you will not take scripture what will you take?

Bro. Dallas </font>[/QUOTE]Dallas,

Wish I had time for a full response of this at the moment. Lots of holes. You disprove your arguments with regard to Catholicism more than ou prove (which is nothing). It is high on my priority list of things to answer. I am having a debate with a Protestant pastor at a local college this week so it may be a bit before I get to it but I will.

Where did I say the Pope was the Catholic Church. The councils (of which Acts 15 is an excellent example) make far more dogmatic decrees than Popes. You really need to get a copy of that Catechism. How can you point out the "lies" of Catholicism if you don't even understand it properly? Your arguements drive me further away from "truth" if that is in fact what you have and I can't see how you could possibly be sure your little baptist sect that can be dated probably in the 18 or 1900's can be true.


Blessings

 

Reply when ever you have opportunity.

I would have you also point me to a worthy 'catechism' which I could study. I am also anxious to learn what I don't know so I can search the scripture and see whether what I do know is true or not.

The best way to meet your opponent is to know him even as you know yourself.

I will stand on the scripture that God shall indwell his children by His Holy Spirit. But I am willing to take your suggestion as solid advice to aid me in understanding what you do believe.

Maybe then you will discontinue your personal attack upon my intelligence and sincerely search the scriptures yourself.

You ought to really read some church history besides what is popularly taught by the Catholic and Protestant sects. It would enable you to intelligently discuss Baptist doctrine and history with me as well.

I will be in prayer the Holy Spirit will help you in your preparation for your debate, in order you might see it is Him and not Mary who is your helper.

May God Richly Bless you.

Bro. Dallas

 

Apparently, some zealous Catholics like to name former Protestants or non-Catholics who have converted to Catholicism. I never heard of David Currie or any of the other men who the Catholic clientele have spoke about. If they are liberal scholars we have another name for them other than theologian; we call them apostate teachers.

Convert to Catholicism men like Drs. J.I. Packer, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Charles F. Stanley, William White, Jr., John Walvoord, J. Dwight Pentecost, Charles C. Ryrie, Paul Enns, Randall Price, Dave Hunt, Jack Van Impe, Thomas Ice, Timothy Demy, Steve Harper, or J. Matthew Pinson and our countenance will drop. I think all of these men are alive; I could be wrong.

 

Dave Hunt, yes, Walvoord yes, but J. I. Packer & Billy Graham. These two would adopt some form of Catholicism in a moment.

J. I Packer is on record as stating “I see two streams of renewal flowing . . . One is a renewal of true godliness. This stream runs mainly, though not exclusively, in charismatic channels . . . The second stream is a renewal of authentic supernaturalism . . . It is as these two streams of renewal continue to flow, and hopefully converge, that the Catholic Church will give most to the rest of Christendom and to the benighted pagan world of our time.”

In the summer of 1998, J. I. Packer arrived in Ireland hosting meetings in Belfast and Dublin and giving the Irish version of Evangelicals & Catholics Together a resounding stamp of approval. At that meeting he referred to the present Pope as “a fine Christian man” and likened the agreement to an explorer hacking his way through a jungle, adding “I say we have hacked the path as far as we have gone and it’s there at a fixed point. The rest of the explorations in which we engage will not renege on any of the things on which we have agreed thus far in hacking the path to the point that it has reached. We go on from here, not back from there.”

As for graham he said “I feel I belong to all churches. I am equally at home in an Anglican or Baptist church or a Brethren assembly or a Roman Catholic church, and I would say that I identify with the customs and the culture and the theology of that particular church.”

And in an interview with Sir David Frost said “Today we have almost one hundred percent Catholic support in this country. That was not true even twenty years ago. And the Bishops and the Archbishops and the Pope are our friends and . . . there is so much we have in common and so much of what we believe.”

 

Ulsterman,

Thanks so much for your input and your quotes. Dr. James I. Packer is not one of my favorate theologians, because he is too Calvinistic for my understanding of Scripture. He is a five point Calvinist and I only hold to the last point.

Dr. Billy Graham seems to be becoming more ecumenical in his latter years. Do you think that he is trying to influence Catholics and some liberals as to the validity of his own view of theological things?

I have read books on each of these theologians that I have mentioned in my first post on this matter. Some people think Rev. Dr. Graham is simply and evangelist. Although I am not on his band wagon, he has a much deeper understanding of Scripture than he offers in his evangelistic messages. Some wrongfully think he has little depth because he is preaching to the masses of people, and does not get into the deep things of God.

 

Hi Ray,

Please learn Billy Graham's relationship with Rome.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/grahamrome2.htm

 

Thanks for the link. Some revealing information. Note what I have placed in bold below.

1950

As noted already, by 1950 Billy Graham had so fallen under the power of Catholicism that he turned to it for solace during an illness. During his 1950 New England campaign, Graham fell sick for several days in Hartford, Connecticut. Executive Secretary Gerald Beavan "stayed at his bedside and read to him from Bishop Fulton Sheen’s Peace of Soul" (Wilson Ewin, The Assimilation of Evangelist Billy Graham into the Roman Catholic Church). We have seen that Graham met Sheen about five years before this. Sheen was a great lover of Mary and was certain of God’s mercy only because of his devotion to Mary.

Boston’s Archbishop Richard Cushing also "exercised a special influence over Billy Graham beginning in 1950. Cushing printed ‘BRAVO BILLY’ on the front of his diocesan paper during the January 1950 campaign. In an interview in 1991, Graham referred to this as one of the highlights of his ministry:

"Another significant thing happened in the early ‘50s in Boston. Cardinal Cushing, in his magazine, The Pilot, put ‘Bravo Billy’ on the front cover. That made news all over the country. He and I became close, wonderful friends. That was my first real coming to grips with the whole Protestant/Catholic situation. I began to realize that there were Christians everywhere. They might be called modernists, Catholics, or whatever, but they were Christians" (Bookstore Journal, Nov. 1991).

In his 1997 autobiography, Just As I Am, Graham acknowledged that he began to draw close to Rome in the early 1950s:

"At that time [March 1950], Protestantism in New England was weak, due in part to theological differences within some denominations, the influence of Unitarian ideas in other denominations, and the strength of the Roman Catholic Church. In spite of all that, a number of Roman Catholic priests and Unitarian clergy, together with some of their parishioners, came to the meetings along with those from Evangelical churches. With my limited Evangelical background, this was a further expansion of my own ecumenical outlook. I now began to make friends among people from many different backgrounds and to develop a spiritual love for their clergy" (Graham, Just As I Am, p. 167).

By the end of 1950, Graham had formed a permanent team of staff members who arranged his meetings. Willis Haymaker was the front man who would go into cities and set up the organizational structure necessary to operate the crusades. One of his duties even in those early days was as follows: "He would also call on the local Catholic bishop or other clerics to acquaint them with Crusade plans and invite them to the meetings; they would usually appoint a priest to attend and report back. This was years before Vatican II’s openness to Protestants, but WE WERE CONCERNED TO LET THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS SEE THAT MY GOAL WAS NOT TO GET PEOPLE TO LEAVE THEIR CHURCH; rather, I wanted them to commit their lives to Christ" (Graham, Just As I Am, p. 163).


The following is from a lawyer:

 

faithcontender,

I did not know that Dr. Graham was so interwoven with Catholicism. I in good conscience could not send newly saved people back to a church that is loaded with error. I always encourage people I know to attend a Bible believing church that is interested in evangelization and growth in the faith.

Thanks. Ray

 

Reading this board can be a saddening experience sometimes.

Mark

 

\

Like the United Church of Christ which you belong to that denies the trinity and approves of killing babies and men exchanging unnatural relations with men and women with women?

Blessings

 

I have to agree with you.

Seeing the RCC showing signs of contrition and recognition of the RC atrocities in the dark ages was very encouraging. But then seeing RC after RC on this board reject the Pope's statement and reject the Vatican scholars coming out in united opposition to the RC atrocities in the dark ages has been saddening. As those scholars specifically admitted to the dodges and tactics of some RC apologists trying to cover up the atrocities of the dark ages - we had hoped that some faithful Catholics would follow their lead.

But alas -- we see on this board equivocating and demonizing of the victims.

And as for burning brother Graham at the stake - Dr. Carroll was clear that such would have been the practice of the RCC in the dark ages.

How sad. You would think that Christians today (no matter what denomination) would have no problem turning away from that and clearly admitting that such was error in the dark ages.

You would think...

In Christ,

Bob