As an ex Catholic I’ve been reading David Currie’s “Born Fundamentalist – Born Again Catholic” and “Rapture – The End Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind” with a good deal of interest.
The first thing I want to say is that I strongly disagree with those Evangelicals who hold the position that Catholics are destined to hell. My Catholic mother passed away last September at the age of ninety. She wasn’t well-educated and disagreed with much of the Catholic Church’s teaching but she didn’t have other options. Yet she read her Bible and many of the “fundamentalist” books I passed onto her. She put her faith and trust in Christ for her salvation (John 3:16) and was determined to spread that message wherever she went. In fact, as she lay in her bed waiting for her impending death, she took it upon herself to interrogate my brother and me as to whether we had “faith in the Lord”.
Having said that, so far from what I’ve read of Currie has me really puzzled. Without going into detail now (perhaps in future posts), the reasons he gives for leaving “fundamentalism” and converting to Catholicism just don’t gel with me. This is especially true of his acceptance and arguments for Catholic Marian dogmas. His commentary on scriptural authority involves circular reasoning and is strategic to his arguments for legitimizing Magisterial Authority - which is paramount to Catholicism.
His critiques of dispensationalism and premillennialism are also fraught with error. One of many examples is a statement he makes about John Walvoord (which he doesn’t cite) and the 70 years of Israel’s captivity, in the book of Daniel. He claims that Walvoord admits the 70 years were not literal 70 years etc. This is simply not true. John Walvoord’s Daniel can be read online as can Robert Culver’s book on Daniel.
Walvoord's "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" can be read HERE
See also Tony Garland's A Testimony of Jesus Christ
The real issue, of course, is that Currie’s eschatology is amillennial and, as such, much of OT prophecy and Revelation are literal sticking points for him. It requires a lot of “finesse” and/or equivocation to handle plain biblical statements that contradict one’s viewpoint.
Gary Gilley’s review of Currie’s book can be read HERE
Here are some articles on Catholicism by Mike Stallard, courtesy of Sharper Iron.
Part one
Part Two
Part Three
This Sunday at Church: Give an Evangelistic Pamphlet to someone
-
This Sunday at Church: Give an Evangelistic Pamphlet to someone. A week ago
I met up with a young man that went to the church on and off for years; he
star...
16 hours ago
No comments:
Post a Comment