Ping...
I haver never understood how some of our Protestant bretheren believe that stories like Noah’s Ark, Jonah, etc. are absolutely true, but reject the plain meaining of Jesus’s words concerning the Eucharist in John. The fact is that up until the Reformation, the orthodox teaching of Christianity was the Real Presence. By the time Martin Luther and John Calvin came along, this doctrine had been studied and decided upon for centuries.
You don't even have to read these articles anymore ...
I thought it was obvious that Mary had not remained a virgin after Christ’s birth, since the Bible mentions the brothers of Jesus. I could see no basis for a belief in the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception. The view of Mary as Coredemptrix and Mediatrix seemed to lower the role of Christ as our sole redeemer and mediator.
Catholic prayers to saints and veneration of images and relics also seemed to impinge on the authority of Christ. The belief that our own works were involved in our salvation seemed to fly in the face of Bible verses I had memorized as a child. How could water baptism be essential to our regeneration? That seemed too physical, too superstitious, too medieval to be true.
Purgatory flew in the face of Christ’s finished work on the Cross, as did the sacrifice of the Mass. Everyone knew that indulgences had proved to be so susceptible to manipulation. The idea that a mere man, the pope, could be infallible — well, that idea was hardly worth addressing. The few Catholics that I did know did not even seem to believe that idea.
Purgatory flew in the face of Christ’s finished work on the Cross, as did the sacrifice of the Mass. Everyone knew that indulgences had proved to be so susceptible to manipulation. The idea that a mere man, the pope, could be infallible — well, that idea was hardly worth addressing. The few Catholics that I did know did not even seem to believe that idea.
So he rejected what was Scriptural for carnal religion that supposes eternal life requires physically eating the literal flesh of God, as so many RCs argue (while the metaphorical position is what is consistent with the NT gospel, and use of metaphorical language in John and many other places).
Meanwhile, while a few fundamental evangelicals go to Rome, far more leave Rome for evangelical chruches due to the spiritual lack they found therein. 68% of those raised Roman Catholic still are Catholic. 15% are now Protestant (9% evangelical); 14% are unaffiliated. Pew forum, Faith in Flux (April 27, 2009) http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/fullreport.pdf 80% of adults who were raised Protestant are still Protestant, but (analysis shows) 25% no longer self-identify with the Protestant denomination in which they were raised. ^
71% of converts from Catholicism to Protestant faith said that their spiritual needs were not being met in Catholicism, with 78% of Evangelical Protestants in particular concurring, versus 43% of those now unaffiliated. Over 75% of those who left Catholicism attended Mass at least once a week as children. Pew forum, Faith in Flux (April 27, 2009) http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/fullreport.pdf
55% of evangelical converts from Catholicism cited dissatisfaction with Catholic teachings about the Bible was a reason for leaving Catholicism, with 46% saying the Catholic Church did not view the Bible literally enough. Only 20% now evangelical were unhappy about Catholicism's teachings on abortion/homosexuality (versus 46% of those now unaffiliated); (12% were dissatisfied with teachings on birth control.
81% of all Protestant converts from Catholicism said they enjoyed the service and worship of Protestant faith as a reason for joining a Protestant denomination, with 62% of all Protestants and 74% Evangelicals also saying that they felt God's call to do so.
51% of Hispanic Evangelicals are converts, and 43% are former Catholics. http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=75
82% of Hispanics cite the desire for a more direct, personal experience with God as the main reason for adopting a new faith. Among those who have become evangelicals, 90% say it was a spiritual search for a more direct, personal experience with God was the main reason that drove their conversion. Negative views of Catholicism do not appear to be a major reason for their conversion. ^
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “
How is one a “born fundamentalist”?
You can be born into a family that is fundamental that doe snot mean you are one automatically.
As long as he makes more of Jesus than he does of either Rome or Mary, and as long as he doesn’t condemn me because I’m a non-Catholic Christ-follower, then good for him.
Beautiful testimony!
While David wrote the above, I think he left out a word. "I could see no SCRIPTURAL basis for a belief....etc." in the second sentence of the above excerpt. It makes all the difference.
Assumption, Immaculate Conception, Coredemptrix, and Mediatrix: with the possible exception of "The Assumption", all the above four are without scriptural foundation that I have ever read.
Scott Hahn, in one of his books I've read, suggests the Assumption is depicted in Revelation 12. I don't think it's a close call, but there is a bit of a point there.
I'm open to hearing scripture that does provide a foundation for those beliefs.
THAT's a neat trick!
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
1 John 3:21-24
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
Zechariah 14:20–21 states prophetically: “On that day … all who come to sacrifice [in Jerusalem] will take some of the pots and cook in them.” Most premillennialists agree that this passage is speaking of a time after Christ’s first coming. Why is it so problematic for them? Because they understand these events to occur during the 1000-year reign of Christ over an earthly kingdom with its capital at Jerusalem.
Here’s the rub. After Christ has died and set up His kingdom, why would sacrifices be resumed? There is absolutely no good Protestant response to that question. Evangelicals are adamant about the fact that priesthood here on earth is no longer needed. Sacrifices after the passion of Christ are unnecessary. The crucifixion of Christ was the last sacrifice ever needed. So why rebuild Jerusalem’s temple? This verse had remained an enigma to me for sixteen years, ever since seminary. When I was investigating Catholic Church teaching, I realized that Zechariah was actually talking about a sacrifice offered in Jerusalem every day now. He was referring to the Eucharist!
This sounds like a wannbe RC who is desperate to find some text of Scripture to justify his claim to be a fundy who found Scriptural basis for Rome, but fails in his attempt to do so, and who also must misrepresent evangelical teaching in so doing, or display an ignorance that is contrary to the claims of his testimony.
Unless one makes this allegorical, Zech. 12 is clearly referring to the future as anyone who understands context (and a fundy harps on that) should be able to tell you, even amazingly describing what sounds like a nuclear holocaust almost 200 years before such as known.
Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. (Zechariah 14:3)
And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. (Zechariah 14:4)
And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth. (Zechariah 14:12)
And the sacrifices are not referring to the Catholic mass, but the reinstitution of Jewish sacrifices consistent the rebuilt tempt and David reigning as king, as Ezekiel describes. Thus before we get to Currie's out-of-context verses, Zechariah states,
And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. (Zechariah 14:16-17)
And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. (Zechariah 14:18-19)
Then we come to Currie's proof text,
In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE Lord; and the pots in the Lord's house shall be like the bowls before the altar. Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the Lord of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts. (Zechariah 14:20-21)
But regardless of how much Curries wants this to confirm to his belief, rather than Zechariah actually talking about the Eucharist being offered in Jerusalem every day now, it is clear he was referring to a future temple and time when Jewish sacrifices take place. For as the "blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in,"(Romans 11:25) and then the curse of blindness is removed, then the remnant of Jews that remain shall believe (and the CCC supports a latter-day Jewish conversion).
And in the millennium, in which believers will be reigns as kings and priests, (Revelation 5:10) many texts teach that the Jews will manifest their faithfulness in that period. And for saints to rule they must have someone to rule over, and it is evident in Rv. 20:7-9 that unbelievers are part of the population, and who will be temporally punished as Zechariah foretells, before being burnt by fire from Heaven at the end.
Some do spiritualize this all, but not only are the specs for the temple Ezekiel describes at length different than that of Exodus, but the description by Ezekiel in cps 36-48 (besides other prophecies) would be unique for figurative language in their extensive detail, and do not lend themselves well to the extensive figurative interpretation required, but correspond well to the futurist understanding of Revelation with its Jewish tribes.
In addition is the absurd claim of this sppsd fundamentalist, that
There is absolutely no good Protestant response to that question. Evangelicals are adamant about the fact that priesthood here on earth is no longer needed. Sacrifices after the passion of Christ are unnecessary.
For the belief in a future temple and Jewish priesthood offering memorial sacrifice is quite common among fundamentalists, while the fact that the NT nowhere refers to pastors distinctively as priests does not pose a problem as futurist fundies understand that the coventantal changes that the 1k year reign of Christ signifies allow for a sacerdotal priesthood offering memorial sacrfiices, and it seems incongruous that Currie would not know this was not a problem if he was as learned as he seems to convey.
The popular Commentary on the Old and New Testaments by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown states on Zechariah 14:16:
every one ... left — (Isa_66:19, Isa_66:23). God will conquer all the foes of the Church. Some He will destroy; others He will bring into willing subjection.
And on Zec 14:20:
The priesthood of Christ will be explained more fully both by the Mosaic types and by the New Testament in that temple of which Ezekiel speaks. Then the Song of Solomon, now obscure, will be understood, for the marriage feast of the Lamb will be celebrated in heaven (Rev_19:1-21), and on earth it will be a Solomonic period, peaceful, glorious, and nuptial. There will be no king but a prince; the sabbatic period of the judges will return, but not with the Old Testament, but New Testament glory (Isa_1:26; Eze_45:1-25) [Roos].
And more recently, about a year ago wmfights posted "Theological Implications of Zechariah 14" from fundamentalist Michael J. Vlach, with a Ph.D.from in Systematic Theology from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, which holds the futurist position, and many more could be added, including futurists from both Dallas Theological Seminary and Moody Bible Institute: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2420732/posts?page=67#67, which Currie lists in his parent pedigree
As a former weekly RC (who had became born again while still a Catholic) and fundamental Baptist, i am skeptical of this man's testimony.
Obviously, the wine and the bread are symbolic. That's the plain sense of the text, ESPECIALLY when one considers the Jewish audience to whom it was addressed. Passover (the occasion of the Last Supper) is a meal of symbols. Sadly, there isn't one Catholic in 10,000 that has a clue about this. The magisterium just doesn't value context very much.