• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Former Protestant Pastor Helps Shepherd Catholic Converts

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Carson Weber:
David Currie, as far as I know, has preached from the pulpit at many Fundamentalist churches. I'm not sure if he's ever been a "pastor" though.
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.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
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".


Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Why does that not surpise me!

Because that is, in essence, the unwavering and consistent content of your posts.. a fruit of your SDA Anti-Catholic tradition.
Case closed.

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi Dallas

Did men nominate, elect and consecrate your first pope?

No, he was appointed by the King. And, when I say "the King", I mean "THE King".

The precedent was set in Jerusalem found in Acts 15.

The decision in Acts 15 was that the Pagan Gentiles do not need to become Jews before they become Christians, and the decision regarding Church discipline as well as Church dogma was made by the men at the council: Apostles as well as other leaders. I'm witnessing a precedent for human authority over the Church - one of humble service.
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
 

Frogman

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
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
 

CatholicConvert

New Member
You are wrong also concerning history and the seeking counsel from Rome. The precedent was set in Jerusalem found in Acts 15. In that ch. Peter declares there is they (Jewish Christians) beleive they shall be saved through the grace that is in Christ Jesus even as they (Gentiles), showing there is a move away from any kind of observance of the OT religion.
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
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Brother Ed says --
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 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
 

Carson Weber

<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
I would like to know who is living for Jesus Christ because of Currie's life.

Actually, Currie's book, Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic was the second Catholic "book" I ever read (well of course, apart from the Bible) after the first, which was Real Love by Mary Beth Bonacci, and it was David's testimony, conviction, and answers that eventually lead to my full embrace of the life and truth of Jesus Christ in my life.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
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
 

thessalonian

New Member
Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Salvation is by grace. Guidance as to what the Gospel fully entails is through the Church which is the "pillar and foundation of the truth".

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:
Acts 15:1  ¶ And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

See the requirement of the OC yet enforced upon those who by grace through faith have been saved? Where is the liberty found in Christ? These are of the 'certain men' See how they are trying to lord it over the local visible church in Antioch.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

See how that Paul and Barnabas withstood these, not because of themselves, but because of their teaching?


3  And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

Note how the church first received them and then the Apostles and elders.

5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

This question came up concerning vs. 3, the declaring of the conversion of the Gentiles. For it is the same report given here in Jerusalem that was given in Antioch. Then here it is that we see a number among them of the sect of the Pharisees, note they are a believers, but note they are incorrectly upholding the law along with the grace.

6 ¶And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

Did the apostles and elders come together in a counsel? Yes. Is this error? No. The error is not found in considering these things, nor is it found in making a statement of what the scriptures teach. The error is found in lording over the local visible church of Antioch or any other locale. This local body only can determine what is found in scripture, this body has only Christ as its head. How are they to subvert this head and bow to a man? Do they not possess the leading of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth?

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8  And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9  And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10  Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11  But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12  Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.


Did Peter rise up to speak? Yes. Did he alone settle the case? No. Did the multitude keep silent? Yes. Does this denote any special authority granted unto Peter? No. Why was the floor given to Paul and Barnabas?

12  Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.


13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

If Peter has settled the case, why is it needful for James to speak? What did he say?

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

Simeon hath declared, no more than what the scripture has declared from the beginning. Does this make Peter infallible? No. Peter is seen fearing the Jews and separating from believers [Gentiles] on the account of the Jews. Peter is a great Apostle and a greater man than myself, but he is not the vicar of Christ on this earth and neither is any one man alive today.

15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,


16  After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17  That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18  Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19  Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:


20  But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21  For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
22  ¶Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23  And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
24  Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25  It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26  Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27  We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28  For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29  That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
30  So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
31  Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.
32  And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
33  And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles.
34  Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
35  Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.
36  ¶And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.
37  And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.
38  But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.
39  And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;
40  And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.
41  And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.
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
 

Frogman

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
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
 

Ray Berrian

New Member
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.
 

Ulsterman

New Member
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.”
 

Ray Berrian

New Member
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.
 

Frogman

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
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:

James E. Bennet was a prominent New York attorney and Bible teacher. He resigned from the crusade committee for Graham’s New York Crusade when he saw that Graham was committed to working with Modernists and false teachers. In his summary of Graham’s 1957 New York Crusade, "Final Analysis--A Ministry of Disobedience," Bennet gave this interesting bit of information:

Furthermore, a friend of mine (a minister of a church on Long Island) went into the inquiry room as an inquirer, and when the counselor asked him what church, he said, ‘To be saved, must I have a church?’ The counselor answered, ‘Yes, you must have a church.’ ‘Can I have a Catholic Church?’ ‘Certainly, if you want to,’ said the counselor. So he gave the name of a Catholic Church in his own locality. Two days later the priest of that church called him up; said he had the card, and would be glad to interview him as a prospective member of that church. I could cite many instances which came to my personal notice. It was one of the most sinful acts of the whole crusade, and will continue to cause inestimable damage. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED TO ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHES, SYNAGOGUES, MODERNISTIC, LIBERAL AND OTHER FORMS OF UNBELIEVING CHURCHES (Letter from G. Archer Weniger to Mr. Walter Smyth, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Dec. 20, 1957).
 

Ray Berrian

New Member
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
 

thessalonian

New Member
Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
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
\

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
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Mark H.:
Reading this board can be a saddening experience sometimes.

Mark
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
 
Top