Searching for the Truth in the King James Bible;
Finding it, and passing it on to you.

EDITOR:
Steve Van Nattan

HOME PAGE

HOME - TABLE OF CONTENTS - WAR ROOM - THE GOSPEL - BIBLE STUDY - MORAL ISSUES - KING JAMES BIBLE - CULTS
HUMOR - PROPHECY - WORLD AFFAIRS - QUIET PLACE - STEVE'S YARNS - STEVE'S BIO - HEALTH - LADIES' PAGE - HEROES

DEATH OF THE REFORMATION COMING

2002 REPORT ON LUTHERANISM

The following observations are from a reader, along with other thoughts from us:

There is much that is commendable of traditional Lutheran beliefs and the LCMS and WELS are to be commended on their stand against the Lutheran World Federation's 1999 "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" with the RCC (http://www.lcms.org/president/statements/betrayal.asp), but I've discovered that basic Lutheran doctrine all the way back to Luther has some serious fundamental problems, particularly, the sacraments (baptism, eucharist) and the Lutheran expression "means of grace" (http://www.lcms.org/belief/doct-10.html) in relation to the sacraments. Even though I was aware that there were some questionable areas, I suspect that because I identified with the music of numerous Lutheran musicians including J.S.Bach, I avoided coming to grips with Lutheran doctrine as I should have. Unless I am misunderstanding their explanations, it looks like some very serious error. It would appear that, along with the RCC, Martin Luther denied his "sola fide".

Also of note: http://www.lcms.org/cic/bornagan.htm ... I just checked to see if this page was still intact and see that they modified it somewhat from what they had a couple years ago. It was as follows:

Q. I heard a pastor (not LCMS) that in order to be saved you must be "born again" and quoted several scriptural passages. What is the LCMS position? I thought baptism was good enough!

A. The question is asked in our synodical catechism, "Why do the Scriptures call Baptism the washing of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit?" The answer given is this: "In Baptism, the Holy Spirit works faith and so creates in us new spiritual life with the power to overcome sin." Titus 3:5ff. is quoted in support of this answer: "He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit...." You are exactly right in saying that our baptism is "good enough."  

This is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Whore Church, and there is no call for faith in Jesus Christ before baptism. The Lutheran scholar will claim that the hierarchy has a method of making sure that each one coming to baptism is born again, though the terms "born again" are rarely used in any Lutheran apologetic writings. Lutheran leaders us the word "born again" when pressed in conversation with Fundamental Baptists and Pentecostals so that the Bible believer will be deceived into thinking Lutherans know about the new birth in Jesus Christ. Among themselves, Lutherans are terrified of the term "new birth" because NONE of them can recall if such an event ever took place in their lives. This applies to the most zealous Lutheran pastor also, for to come in a manner other than the Creedal plan would destroy the fool's resume.

The method used to save Lutherans is infant baptism, catechism, and confirmation. In this process-christianity the infant knows NOTHING about the work of Jesus on the cross, so the Lutheran hierarchy assures the parents that they can save the child by their proxy zeal and the power of John Calvin and the Heidelburg Confession. Other Reformed denominations simply substitute another creed, such as the Belgique Confession, the Westminster Confession, or the 39 Articles of the Episcopal Church.

Thus, Lutherans have NO recollection of being saved, and NO recollection of being baptized in their whole life. They were too young to recall a thing. This is NOT in the Word of God, for all accounts of baptism in the Bible are with adults AFTER salvation and repentance. The Catechism consists of memorizing facts from the creed with very little Bible included. The only case these limp wristed scholars can come up with is the Philippian jailor, for it is said that he was baptized and his house. The Mormon doctrine of "it stands to reason" is used to claim that the Philippian jailor had little babies, and they were baptized. This is Mother Goose theology, and the Pope would be proud. There is nothing in Acts about a baby being baptized. The case of Philip with the Eunuch is classic, and the Lutheran theologians have to grab another Bible (Catholic Gnostic) other than the KJV to avoid this one.

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Verse 37 is deleted in Satanic versions of the Bible used by Catholic scholars, Church of Christ water dogs, and Reformed egg heads because it damns their water salvation, or water redemption.

1 Peter 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

The Blood of Jesus is NOT pictured in water baptism. The Blood of Christ is pictured in the other "sacrament" or the Lord's Supper. In fact, there is more logic in the Roman Catholic teaching of redemption in the Mass than in the Lutheran Reformed teaching of water redemption. Our pages on the Roman Catholic Whore will of course show the damning nature of the Mass, in spite of the above comment.

Salvation must come BEFORE baptism, and in Romans 10:9-10 confession is made by an adult penitent, or else the water in any quantity simply heaps up more damnation on the participant. Philip, in the Acts 8 text, followed the Romans 10 teaching of Paul long before Paul made it formal under inspiration. Any fool who cannot understand this and obey it is bound for hell and deserves all the hell God gives him for using this doctrine of water redemption to lead Lutherans to hell. Nothing damns a soul better than false hope.

The Confirmation consists of answering correctly, which has nothing to do with being born again. There is NO "Lord, be merciful to me a sinner" in Reformed confirmation processes. These efete scholarly snobs truly believe, by the authority of John Calvin, that the candidate for confirmation is already in the New Covenant by virtue of their baptism. Indeed, the Calvinist doctrine of election FORCES the hierarchy to confirm virtually every candidate for confirmation in view of the parents' baprizing the child long ago. To reject even one of these passive participants would bring into question the power of the Reformed creeds and their version of the doctrine of election. In Reformed theology, God is stuck with all children of Reformed parents if they follow the plan "by the numbers" as we said in the US Army. It is all dead works, and part of the works is not even done by the candidate for eternal life-- the parents must do it. Indeed, Reformed theologians will even go so far as to say the baptism of an baby of a Reformed member is the New Testament equivelant of Old Testament circumcision.

This implies that the baby was never a lost soul, for the child of a Hebrew believer, under Moses law, was circumcising a born Jew who was under the covenant of God to Abraham before conception. This truth of the Old Testament is then absconded with to give the Reformed parent the notion that they are baptizing a baby which is elect, and God really has not choice in the matter-- the water sprinkled seals the eternal salvation of that baby if all the steps of the Creed are followed over the coming years. Reformed doctrine is damned of hell, for it is a doctrine which tells God what he will do, and God has NO say in the outcome. The Creed is sovereign, and John Calvin is the agent who has defined it. The Bible, IF it is consulted, is used merely for cross reference only.

This is an insurance policy for those who do not repent and believe in Jesus Christ for salvation. They can get a sprinkle of water from the Popish Lutheran version of the heresy, and all is well. The very mode of Lutheran and Reformed baptism screams out the blasphemy of the thing, for sprinkling is NOT the biblical symbol of regeneration, IF that were happening at baptism, which it is not.

Leviticus 8:11 And he sprinkled thereof upon the altar seven times, and anointed the altar and all his vessels, both the laver and his foot, to sanctify them.

Hebrews 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

"Us" in the text are already saved people getting right and seeking to "be ye holy for I am holy" after God's example.

Sprinkling is done to SAVED Jews under a PREVIOUS covenant, and it is for sanctification, not salvation.

Hebrews 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Baptism has nothing to do with remission of sins, UNLESS you are an Old Testament Jew in the Upper Room at Pentecost who was right with God already as a Jew under the Old Covenant. You will be told by Peter to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Gentiles were NEVER told to be baptized for salvation or remission of sins. Mark it down. Reformed baptism is the baptism of the Pope, which, by the way, is a total reverse on Sola Fide. Luther mouthed the Latin words, but he damned them to hell with his baptism. Thus, the vast majority of Lutherans are lost and on their way to hell.

READ HOW THE LUTHERANS FOLLOWED HITLER IN GERMANY

http://groups.msn.com/TheHistoryPage/worldhistory.msnw?action=get_
message&mview=0&ID_Message=10101&ID_CLast=11726&CDir=1

Also:

"In order to better understand Bonhoeffer�s struggle under the National Socialist Party of Hitler, we have to understand the place of the Lutheran church in Germany. It is a state church supported by a tax system and governed by a church administrative hierarchy. It was relatively easy for Hitler firstly to make deceptive statements that he intended the church to have a significant "Christian" role in the new Germany which held the churches in thrall. Secondly, the Nazis could control the appointments of the Bishop and administrative seats and with threats and coercion forced the church to accept his projects and purposes. Bonhoeffer challenged the Lutheran church in its failure to respond to the direction of the church and its fear and lack of moral leadership. Few if any sermons from Lutheran pastors spoke with critical perception of the lack of moral leadership on the part of the church. Bonhoeffer refers to the approach of the church and that of society in general as: "
http://www.pgimf.org/archive/Bonhoeffer%20Discipleship.doc

Joseph A. Donnella's article on racism (page 13) was superb. It's difficult to believe there are white Lutheran pastors who still equate "Lutheran theology" with Adolf Hitler's Germanization of the church. Any theology that brings in another god-in this case the god of racism-and erects its idol within the church is a polytheistic religion. Possibly the white pastors our brother met in Bible study need to check their altars for foreign objects. Any tacit silence about our competing gods equates to compliance. Any proclamation of the gospel that doesn't talk against the god of racism is not talking on behalf of the Christ who died "to dismantle the wall of hostility between Jews and Gentiles ... to make us one" http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3942/is_200004/ai_n8883562

The Catholic hierarchy didn't like him from the start, but many local priest were in the beginning sympathetic to the Nazi's. The Lutheran pastors and clerics were split. Many in the seminaries wanted peace at all costs, and were prepared to accommodate the Nazi's. More than a few leading theologians like the idea of an Aryan only church.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1497672/posts

During the Hitler regime, except for individual acts of resistance, the established churches were unable or unwilling to mount a serious challenge to the supremacy of the state. A Nazi, Ludwig M�ller, was installed as the Lutheran bishop in Berlin.
http://countrystudies.us/germany/94.htm

Hitler wanted to combine all the regional Protestant churches into a single and united Reich Church. Of course this meant government control of the Church and a minority of Lutheran Pastors foresaw the dangers. In 1933, a few Protestant Pastors, namely Martin Niemïller, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth and others formed the "Pastors Emergency League" which later became known as "The Confessing Church" to oppose the state controlled Nazi Church.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm

From: "Timothy Aho" timbarbaho@msn.com
Subject: Reversal of Reformation Day

To: The Watchmen From: Watch Unto Prayer timbarbaho@msn.com http://watch.pair.com/pray.html Date: June 17, 1999

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses on the door of the Church in Wittenburg, an event which commenced the Protestant Reformation. And on this date in 1999, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation will sign an agreement of consensus on the doctrine of justification, relinquishing the condemnations issued by both confessions during the Reformation.

What does this reversal of the Reformation portend? To understand the present apostasy, Christians must understand the Reformation and the major doctrine of salvation which, having been lost upon the Church, was recovered by the Reformers. Luther himself happened upon the doctrine of justification by faith alone while reading the book of Romans during his tenure in the Vatican. For a century preceding the Reformation, the Scriptures had begun to circulate among the common people, at great personal cost to those responsible for its translation and publication. John Wycliffe, William Tyndale and other heroes of the faith were martyred for their labors.

Although the Reformers have been given proper credit, it was the living Word of God which restored to a lost world the two great doctrines from which the established Church had departed: Justification by faith alone and Sola Scriptura. A magnificent apology (defense) for the Reformation which explains the precious doctrines of true Christian faith appears on the Protestant Reformed Churches in America web site: "The righteousness with which a man is righteous before God is the work of Jesus Christ and the work of Jesus Christ alone. The satisfaction for sins, the suffering of the full punishment, the obtaining of the perfect righteousness which I need, were accomplished perfectly, once for all, by Jesus in His suffering and death on the cross. This righteousness is now in Christ, and the way in which it becomes mine so that I can enjoy it is the way of faith in Christ Jesus as the crucified and risen Savior.

The way of faith is the way of trusting in Christ Jesus and His perfect righteousness, whom I know as the Savior with unshakable certainty because of God's promise in His Word. To the question, "How am I just before God?" the Reformation gave a new, radically different answer, "Not by works which I do, not even partly, but by faith alone." The Reformation based this on the clear teaching of Scripture: Romans 1:17 states, "The just shall live by faith"; Romans 3:28 says, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." ... "The solid foundation on which the Reformation stood was the authority of the Word of God, the Scriptures. This was the other of the two outstanding truths proclaimed by the Reformation.

The Bible alone has authority over believers and over the church. Also this truth had long since been lost in the church. The authority was the hierarchy, the Pope and the priest. The Scriptures were almost entirely absent from the life of the church." It remains to be seen how consensus will obtain between the Roman Catholic and Lutheran confessions. It is probable that a whitewash will ensue, with both sides posturing that the controversial issues have been theologically reconciled. The first of the next several reports, however, misses important elements upon which true resolution of the conflict depend -- repentance for error and reliance upon Scripture.

The New Evangelical Statement (#2) is a tortured, convoluted exposition of doctrine which lacks the precise expression that is worthy of its profound and exalted subject. Despite a multitude of words, and claims that this document restores the historic Protestant confession of faith, the anonymous authors have conspicuously omitted the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Without the solid foundation of Scripture as the sole authority on matters of faith and practice, every other doctrine becomes subject to the vicissitudes of papal, theological or private interpretation (see news report #3.)

1. Lutherans and Catholics to sign away justification dispute on 31 October

By Stephen Brown

Geneva, 11 June (ENI)--The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and the Roman Catholic Church have reached agreement on an historic document which aims to resolve a theological controversy dating back to the 16th-century split between Martin Luther and the papacy.

The two communions are to declare officially on 31 October that mutual doctrinal condemnations pronounced at the time of the Reformation no longer apply. It is believed to be the first time that the Vatican has ever declared that Catholic doctrinal condemnations no longer apply to a Protestant communion.

Dr Ishmael Noko, the LWF's general secretary, and Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy, president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, told a press conference in Geneva today that the LWF and the Catholic Church would sign a joint declaration on justification in the German city of Augsburg on 31 October this year - 482 years to the day after Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the town church in Wittenberg, an event which is widely reckoned to mark the start of the Reformation.

The joint declaration states that "a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists between Lutherans and Catholics". The doctrine of justification was one of the main points at issue at the time of the Reformation.

In Augsburg the two communions will also sign an "official common statement" - the text of which was published today - which seeks to resolve any doubts as to whether the two communions are ready to accept fully the joint declaration and to state that the doctrinal condemnations no longer apply.

However, although significant, today's announcement does not mean that Lutherans and Catholics will soon be in full communion or able to share the Eucharist.

The doctrine of justification, one of the main reasons for the breach between Martin Luther and the papacy, led to mutual doctrinal condemnations between Catholics and Luther's followers, who described as unbiblical the Catholic teaching about the role of good works in winning salvation.

According to Lutherans, human beings are justified through faith by the grace of God, and not because of good works.

Like the date, the choice of Augsburg for the signing ceremony is particularly significant since it was in this town in 1530 that followers of Luther presented the Augsburg Confession - a statement of Luther's teaching - to Emperor Charles V at an imperial diet called by the emperor in an unsuccessful attempt to end the dispute between Protestants and Catholics. The Augsburg Confession, Dr Noko told the press conference, was "considered by both sides today as a genuine attempt to maintain the unity of the church. In that perspective, Augsburg has rightly been called a 'Peace Town', a site symbolising the conciliatory beginning of inter-confessional dialogue."

Cardinal Cassidy told the press conference that Pope John Paul II had given his blessing for the signing of the joint declaration and the official common statement.

The joint declaration was "one of the great acquisitions of the modern ecumenical movement", Cardinal Cassidy said. "What we are doing is not just of importance for the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church, but for the whole ecumenical movement."

Dr Noko said today that "we do not claim agreement on all issues related to the doctrine of justification. Nevertheless, we have reached consensus on principal points of a doctrine which can itself rightly be called fundamental within the faith of the Christian church."

In the course of drawing up the joint declaration, Dr Noko said, people sometimes asked, "Who has given up most in this project, the Lutherans or the Roman Catholics?" But, he added: "These days we appear not to be able to understand that a victory can be won without one of the parties ceding to the other."

He said: "The Joint Declaration itself has not been reached by a show of strength, but by theological clarification which has led to a further reduction of 'enemy images'."

The joint declaration on justification, drawn up by representatives of the two communions, was published in 1997 and sent to LWF member churches for consultation. In June last year, the LWF council - the organisation's governing body - gave its backing to the declaration, and stated that the Lutheran condemnations no longer applied to Roman Catholic teaching. But only a week later, hopes of an imminent joint signing were thrown into confusion when the Vatican published its official response to the declaration, casting doubt on whether the Vatican was ready to lift its doctrinal condemnations of Lutheran teachings. It also questioned whether the LWF had the authority to speak on doctrinal issues in the name of its member churches.

Since then negotiations between representatives of the LWF and the Vatican have led to the drawing up of the "official common statement", which as well as stating that the two communions confirmed the joint declaration "in its entirety", contains an "annex" which deals with some of the questions left open by the responses of the LWF and the Vatican.

The annex stresses that the Vatican's response last year did "not intend to put in question the authority of the Lutheran synods or of the Lutheran World Federation". The annex also states that it "becomes clear that the mutual condemnations of former times do not apply to the Catholic and Lutheran doctrines of justification as they are presented in the joint declaration".

The official common statement "is a very clear statement which should resolve any doubts about what we are signing in respect of the condemnations", Cardinal Cassidy said. The annex was "not something that changes the joint declaration, but substantiates it", he added.

Also according to the statement published today, continued dialogue and further clarification are necessary "in order to reach full church communion, a unity in diversity, in which remaining differences would be 'reconciled' and no longer have a divisive force".

Asked by ENI whether it would take decades or centuries until Catholics and Lutherans were able to share the Lord's Supper, Cardinal Cassidy said he was "reluctant to make prophecies about the ecumenical movement". It was "still too early to set a date," he said.

"Within the ecumenical movement we have to make our plans according to what the Holy Spirit allows us to do. We have to open our hearts and minds to what the spirit says to the churches. If we could do that, we could make more progress."

Also asked by ENI whether the Vatican was considering lifting its 1521 excommunication of Martin Luther, Cardinal Cassidy said that it was not possible to revoke the excommunication posthumously. "One cannot now do anything for Martin Luther because Martin Luther, wherever he is, is not worried about these condemnations", he said, but he added: "We have put away the condemnations of the doctrine of justification."

Among the many issues which the two traditions will have to discuss before reaching full visible unity is the issue of the Papacy. Earlier this year the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission suggested that Anglicans could accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome - one of the Pope's titles - even before full visible unity. Asked by ENI whether Lutherans might also consider such a suggestion, Dr Noko said that "Bishop of Rome has been an important figure as far as the western church is concerned". He pointed out that the joint declaration suggested that there be further studies on the issues of authority in the church and ministry, and this might mean touching on the issues which had been raised by ARCIC, "but we are not yet there". [1273 words]

All articles (c) Ecumenical News International Reproduction permitted only by media subscribers and provided ENI is acknowledged as the source.

Ecumenical News International Tel: (41-22) 791 6087/6515 Fax: (41-22) 798 1346 E-Mail: eni@eni.ch PO Box 2100 150 route de Ferney CH-1211 Geneva 2 Switzerland

2. Three former SBC presidents among 129 endorsing new evangelical statement

By Art Toalston

CHICAGO (BP)--A new evangelical statement on the doctrine of justification -- saving faith in Jesus Christ -- includes the signatures of three former Southern Baptist Convention presidents, Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley and Jim Henry, and the president of the SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Richard Land.

In all, 129 evangelicals, including Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Chuck Colson, Promise Keepers founder Bill McCartney and theologians J.I. Packer and R.C. Sproul, have signed the statement, titled, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration."

The statement will appear in Christianity Today's June 14 issue and on the magazine's Internet site, www.christianity.net.

"Of the making of many statements, there is no end," acknowledges David Neff, Christianity Today's executive editor, in an article introducing the new statement.

Neff recounts, however, the thinking of two unnamed theologians: "Wouldn't it be wonderful, they said, if evangelicals could achieve a broad consensus on the gospel and join in a common statement?"

Neff was among the 15 members of the statement's "drafting committee," which also included Timothy George, a Southern Baptist and dean of Samford University's Beeson Divinity School in Birmingham, Ala., and John Ankerberg, host of an evangelical TV show and member of a Southern Baptist congregation in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Among other Southern Baptists signing the statement are Paul Pressler, one of the key leaders of the conservative resurgence in the SBC and a retired Texas appellate court judge; David S. Dockery, president of Union University, Jackson, Tenn.; Beth Moore, a popular author and Bible teacher and member of First Baptist Church, Houston; Beverly LaHaye, founder of Concerned Women for America, and her husband, Tim, a popular Christian author; and Tom Nettles, professor of historical theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky. Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship, also has long been identified as a Southern Baptist church member.

Apart from Land, no other SBC agency president was among the statement's initial signers.

Among other evangelicals signing the statement are Wayne Grudem, president of the Evangelical Theological Society and president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; Campus Crusade for Christ founder Bill Bright; World magazine publisher Joel Belz; popular author Max Lucado; Bill Hybels, pastor of Willow Creek Community Church in suburban Chicago; and D. James Kennedy, pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. . Neff, in his article, notes "the need for a reference document for those engaged in interchurch dialog, for theological students, for pastors, for parachurch ministries, for itinerant evangelists, and for the rest of us."

Timothy George, according to a Religion News Service report, said he hopes the statement affirms Jesus' prayer "that they all may be one."

George told RNS, "When evangelicals themselves are so divided, as our rhetoric has sometimes portrayed us to be, that's a bad witness for the gospel."

John Ankerberg told RNS, "With our different organizations, schools, parachurch ministries, we have needed a statement on what the central message of the Christian faith is.... This is important, it's needed and it's wonderful to see the unity on this message."

Ankerberg told RNS the statement eventually may become a global affirmation of evangelical belief. "There is a lot of enthusiasm among international evangelicals," he said.

The statement, which spans six pages in Christianity Today, declares in part in a preamble: "This Gospel is the only Gospel: there is no other; and to change its substance is to pervert and indeed destroy it."

It notes: "Salvation is a Trinitarian reality, initiated by the Father, implemented by the Son, and applied by the Holy Spirit. It has a global dimension, for God's plan is to save believers out of every tribe and tongue (Rev. 5:9) to be his church ... ."

Among other declarations in the statement:

-- "... all who do not receive Christ will be judged according to their just deserts as measured by God's holy law, and face eternal retributive punishment."

-- "Christians are commanded to love each other despite differences of race, gender, privilege, and social, political, and economic background (John 13:34-35; Gal. 3:28-29), and to be of one mind wherever possible (John 17:20-21; Phil. 2:2; Rom. 14:1-15:13). We know that divisions among Christians hinder our witness in the world, and we desire greater mutual understanding and truth-speaking in love. We know too that as trustees of God's revealed truth we cannot embrace any form of doctrinal indifferentism, or relativism, or pluralism by which God's truth is sacrificed for a false peace.

"Doctrinal disagreements call for debate. Dialogue for mutual understanding and, if possible, narrowing of the differences is valuable, doubly so when the avowed goal is unity in primary things, with liberty in secondary things, and charity in all things."

-- "We deny that anyone is saved in any other way than by Jesus Christ and his Gospel. The Bible offers no hope that sincere worshipers of other religions will be saved without personal faith in Jesus Christ."

-- "We deny that anyone who rejects the humanity of Christ, his incarnation, or his sinlessness, or who maintains that these truths are not essential to the Gospel, will be saved (1 John 4:2-3)."

-- "We deny the validity of any so-called gospel that denies the historical reality of the bodily resurrection of Christ."

A public celebration of the document will be held during the international gathering of CBA, formerly the Christian Booksellers Association, in July 2000 in New Orleans, RNS reported.

R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Seminary, who was not among the statement's signatories, issued comments June 8 on the new document.

"I did not sign the document because I am concerned that evangelicalism is now confused by the existence of several statements purporting to deal with the gospel," Mohler said, noting, however, various strengths in the new statement.

The confusion "is the direct result, though certainly unintended, of the ECT statements and related public controversy," Mohler said in a reference to "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" statements in 1994 and 1997 involving many of the latest statement's signers and various Catholic notables. The ECT statements sparked strong controversy in various Southern Baptist and other evangelical quarters.

"I believe that the ECT statements effectively confused the nature of the gospel, even as the organizers sought to unify the church," Mohler stated.

"I recognize that the drafters of 'The Gospel of Jesus Christ' intend to clarify as well as to unify," Mohler said of the latest statement. "Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced that an exchange of such statements is now the best means of clarifying the vital doctrinal issues involved," he said, acknowledging, "This is a question of personal judgment and a matter of personal conviction."

Mohler added, "I prefer to stand upon the historic creeds and confessions of the evangelical tradition, and upon the Abstract of Principles and the Baptist Faith and Message statements which frame our convictions as Baptists."

On the positive side, Mohler said, "This is a timely and powerful document, rightly affirming the nature and character of the gospel as accomplished by God and as revealed in the Scriptures. The strengths of the statement are many, and the prose is often eloquent."

Among the strengths cited by Mohler: "its clear affirmation of the exclusivity of the gospel and the necessity of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ."

Mohler noted, "The fact that signatories and drafters included representatives from both Reformed and Arminian churches indicates a purpose to unite evangelicals behind this 'celebration' of the gospel. The statement affirms biblical orthodoxy as understood by evangelicals, and roots these convictions in the patristic consensus as well as the confessions of the Reformation."

Commenting on plans by the new statement's organizers to hold a major public event preceded by a year of discussion, Mohler said, "It would have been helpful had the drafters followed the model of the process which produced the 'Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy' and held public discussion and debate during the drafting process."

Other SBC agency presidents were given opportunity to comment on the statement, but none had responded by Baptist Press' deadline June 8.

The churches led by the three former SBC presidents: Rogers, Bellevue Baptist Church, Cordova, Tenn.; Stanley, First Baptist Church, Atlanta; and Henry, First Baptist, Orlando.

Neff, in his introductory article about the statement, asserts, "Today, classic theological liberalism is no longer the church's main threat. As we enter a post-Christian world, one driven by consumer culture and the entertainment industry, we face more basic challenges, such as the radical devaluation of human life."

He also writes, "If some parts of this document sound like a reprise of themes from the sixteenth century, it is because those themes have grown faint for many. This is not merely a biblical study of salvation, but a pastoral reminder of where we have come from, a remembrance of a relevant past."

Other signers of the statement include publisher Stephen Strang of the charismatic magazine Charisma; theologians John Stott and D.A. Carson; international evangelist Luis Palau; Joni Eareckson Tada; Brandt Gustavson, president of National Religious Broadcasters, and David Clark, chairman of NRB's executive committee and vice president, broadcast communications, for the Southern Baptist North American Mission Board; and African American evangelicals Tony Evans and Kay Coles James.

http://www.religiontoday.com Baptist Press for Tuesday, June 8, 1999

3. ANGLICAN COMMISSION ACCEPTS POPE'S SUPREMACY

June 1, 1999 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, 1701 Harns Rd., Oak Harbor, WA 98277) - An Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue commission has released a document recognizing the Pope as "a gift to be received by all the Churches." The 43-page document titled The Gift of Authority was produced by the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, which has been dialoguing for five years. The document was released on May 12 by Lambeth Palace, the home of the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey. Though he admitted that the statement will be controversial, Carey said that "in a world torn apart by violence and division, Christians need urgently to be able to speak with one common voice." The document said that if a new united "Church" were created the Pope would exercise "universal primacy."

The commission concluded that the Bishop of Rome had a "specific ministry concerning the discernment of truth" and accepted that only the Pope had the moral authority to unite the various Christian denominations (Catholic Online, May 13, 1999).

This is evidence of further preparation for the establishment of an apostate One World Church.

The Lord Jesus Christ did not establish a pope over the churches. Peter did not hold a position of pope, and there was no provision made in the New Testament for the succession of apostolic authority after the death of the Apostles.

PETER VS. THE POPES

The following study is from the Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible and Christianity --

1. There is no evidence that Peter was in Rome, and there is no evidence in the New Testament that there was anything special about the congregation at Rome, but the popes rule in Rome and claim that it is the "mother church." Peter's first epistle was written from Babylon, not from Rome, and the popes' claim that "Babylon" stands for Rome is mere conjecture.

Paul wrote TO the church at Rome in A.D. 58, but though he mentions 27 people by name, he does not mention Peter. That would have been an awful affront if Peter had been the pope at Rome. Later, Paul writes FROM Rome to the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, and to Philemon, but not once does he mention that Peter is in Rome. In 2 Timothy 4:16 Paul said that no man stood with him and all forsook him when he answered his charges. Where was Pope Peter? The fact is that Peter was not a pope and he was not in Rome.

If Peter ever had keys, they were not to the Church.
They were to the boat house on Lake Gallilee.

2. Peter was married (Matthew 8:14), but the popes cannot marry.

3. Peter said Holy Scripture is the sure Word of God and to this alone we are to give heed (2 Peter 1:19-21), but the popes say we are also to heed their uninspired traditions.

4. Peter warned of false teachers who would make merchandise of God's people (2 Peter 2:1-3), but the popes have not feared to sell their masses and their prayers and their indulgences.

5. Peter said baptism is a figure, a symbol, and that it is not water which saves us, but the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21), but the popes say that baptism itself brings salvation and that it is not merely symbolic.

6. Peter refused worship (Acts 10:25-26), but the popes have accepted honor and bowings and kissings which border on worship and have allowed themselves to be treated almost as gods.

7. Peter taught that salvation is strictly through the righteousness of Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1), but the popes claim that their sacraments are also necessary for salvation.

8. Peter taught against hierarchicalism, warning the pastors against "being lords over God's heritage" (1 Peter 5:1-4), and Peter mentioned no church office other than that of the elder; but the popes have set up a system of ecclesiastical lordship over the churches, and have added many offices which are never mentioned in the New Testament.

9. Peter taught that the only priesthood in the New Testament dispensation is the High priesthood of Jesus Christ and the general priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9), but the popes say that their "church" has a special priesthood which is ordained to distribute sacraments.

10. Peter taught that Jesus Christ is the rock upon which the church is founded (1 Peter 2:4-8), but the popes say that Peter was the rock.

11. Peter taught that men are born again through the Word of God (1 Peter 1:23), but the popes say that men are born again through baptism.

12. Peter taught that Christ has "once suffered for sins" (1 Peter 3:18), and "bare our sins in his own body on the tree" (1 Peter 2:24); but the popes say that Christ is sacrificed anew in each mass and that having Jesus Christ and his cross is not enough, that a believer also needs the Roman Catholic Church and its sacraments and priesthood.

13. Peter taught that the believer has a living hope, that he has an inheritance reserved in heaven, and that he is kept by the power of God (1 Peter 1:2-5); but the popes say that a believer cannot know for sure that he has a home in heaven.

[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service. These articles cannot be stored on BBS or Internet sites without express permission from the author. The articles cannot be sold or placed by themselves or with other material in any electronic format for sale, but may be distributed for free by e-mail or by print. They must be left intact and nothing removed or changed, including these informational headers.

This is a listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. Our goal is not devotional. OUR PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. If you desire to receive this type of material on a regular basis, e-mail us, tell us who you are and where you are located, and request to be placed on the list. Also include your postal address and the name of the church of which you are a member. Please note that we take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and you will be expected to participate.

Subscription is $20/yr. Way of Life Literature, 1701 Harns Rd., Oak Harbor, WA 98277. The Way of Life web site is http://wayoflife.org/~dcloud.]


LINKS

Five Subtle Heresies of Reformed Doctrine -- By Don Fortner

 

BECAUSE OF MARTIN LUTHER'S HYBRIDIZING OF CATHOLICISM WITH BIBLICAL TRUTH, AND BECAUSE OF HIS CONFUSED MESSAGE, AND BECAUSE OF HIS LOVE AFFAIR WITH AUGUSTINE, THE CATHOLICS HAVE QUITE A CASE HERE.

Thus, I would suggest you NEVER call yourself a Protestant, but a Bible believer.

BACK TO WAR ROOM

BACK TO DENOMINATIONS MENU PAGE

BACK TO ENTRY PAGE OF THE JOURNAL