One of the trends being followed by Apprising Ministries right now along the Internet front within apostatizing evangelicalism is a growing syncretism. It’s already so bad that even heretical Oneness Pentecostal purveyor and Word Faith mogul T.D. Jakes  is being mainstreamed. 

I’ve talked about it before e.g. in The Elephant Room, T.D. Jakes & Cindy Trimm; you’ll also see in James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes, And Postmodern Obfuscation that MacDonald is defending Jakes before he’s even entered the Elephant Room.

Another area of this sickening syncretism I’ve been showing you going on in spiritually spineless evanjellyfish is illustrated in recent AM articles like  SBC’S Beth Moore Merely Pretending To Be Protestant and James Robison And Rick Warren Working To Reverse The Protestant Reformation and Southern Baptist Kay Warren Promoting Devout Roman Catholic Jean Vanier.

Being SBC, for now, and as a former Roman Catholic—whom God in His mercy delivered me from that religious bondage into the glorious liberty of the sons of God—this romancing of Rome by major figures in the SBC is certain to catch my attention. I happen to take the following from the Lord very seriously:

 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1)

Since it’s not the point of this piece suffice here to say that, along with the false philosophy of postmodernism descending upon the mainstream of the church visible, we’re witnessing the evil effects of the Emergent Church and its core doctrine of Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM). Now consider that this divination of CSM flowered in the monastic traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.

As such, it’s really no wonder that people influenced by it end up with a warped view of Rome. I was discussing this with my good friend Richard Bennett—a former Roman Catholic priest—on the phone last night. From monitoring Intel I’m seeing there is going to be a real push within mainstream evangelicalism, maybe even as soon as this year, to start including the Roman Catholic Church as a Christian denomination.

The lines are more blurred than you may even realize. For example, I happened to see the below tweet last night from Steve Camp, which actually serves as an excellent example of how it’s been happening:

(Online source)

Steve Camp can hardly be dismissed as some “angry discernment blogger” and he did ask Russell Moore the key question this morning:

(Online source)

As of this writing Steve tells me that Moore’s not responded to the question. If you don’t know:

Dr. Moore is the Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice-President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a preaching pastor at Highview Baptist Church, where he ministers weekly at the congregation’s Fegenbush location. (Online source)

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is a Southern Baptist-affiliated school where Dr. Al Molher is president. Camp’s tweet contains the link to Moore’s blog post The Next Billy Graham Might Be Drunk Right Now. His piece highlights encouragement Moore derives from a conversation he had with the late theologian Carl C.F. Henry. Moore said he asked Henry if he “saw any hope in the coming generation of evangelicals.”

Moore then continues:

And I will never forget his reply.

“Why, you speak as though Christianity were genetic,” he said. “Of course, there is hope for the next generation of evangelicals. But the leaders of the next generation might not be coming from the current evangelical establishment. They are probably still pagans.”

“Who knew that Saul of Tarsus was to be the great apostle to the Gentiles?” he asked us. “Who knew that God would raise up a C.S. Lewis, a Charles Colson? They were unbelievers who, once saved by the grace of God, were mighty warriors for the faith.” (Online source)

Resisting the urge to wrestle with the serpent concerning C.S. Lewis and SBC ecumenicist Chuck Colson, Moore is correct when goes on to say that “the same principle applied to Henry himself.” Next comes the section which should raise your concern:

The next Jonathan Edwards might be the man driving in front of you with the Darwin Fish bumper decal. The next Charles Wesley might be a misogynist, profanity-spewing hip-hop artist right now. The next Billy Graham might be passed out drunk in a fraternity house right now.

The next Charles Spurgeon might be making posters for a Gay Pride March right now. The next Mother Teresa might be managing an abortion clinic right now.
(Online source, emphasis mine)

Steve Camp’s comment correctly brings out the heart of the matter:

(Online source)

This is quite a problematic position to be advanced by Russell Moore concerning the Roman Catholic universalist who even took her name after the emotionally troubled Roman Catholic mystic Teresa of Avila, a major player in Counter Reformation spirituality. We simply cannot follow fickle feelings based upon mere appearances; instead, let’s do what Jesus tells us to:

“Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” (John 7:24)

So, now we’ll look a little closer at the record concerning the fruit of Mother Teresa’s spiritual confessions, who died a slave to the apostate Roman Catholic Church, which has condemned the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No, that doesn’t sound pleasant; however, these are the facts. Now, are we really to believe the following words of idolatry should be accepted as having come from someone who was actually a Christian:

When the Congregation of the Missionaries of Charity had just been established, we needed a building for the Congregation’s motherhouse. To get it, I promised the Virgin to pray 85,000 Memorares.

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to your protection, implored your help, or sought your intercession was left unaided. Inspired by this confidence, I fly to you, O virgin of virgins, my Mother.

To you do I come, before you I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me. Amen. 

There were not too man of us yet. How were we going to take care of our debt? I came up with a solution: to bring together all the children and the sick we were taking care of in Nirmal Hriday and Shishu Bhavan. I taught them the prayer and we all promised to pray it. The building did not take long to become ours.[1]

Though I’m saddened and surprised at Russell Moore’s position, he’s hardly the only one in the SBC who holds it. For example back in May of this year Kay Warren, whose husband Purpose Driven Pope Rick Warren captains the Southern Baptist flagship Saddleback Church, tweeted the following quote from the mystic Roman Catholic nun:

(Online source)

More indication of the growing infestation within the visible church of ne0-Gnostic corruption CSM ala Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster, perpetrated within the mainstream of evangelicalism as supposed Spiritual Formation with an able assist from his spiritual twin SBC minister Dallas Willard. There is some truth there, God is faithful to His children; but those enslaved to apostate Roman Catholicism aren’t His. 

Now before you play the “narrow-minded ODM” card, I suggest you pay attention to the following from The Myth of Mother Teresa by well-respected Reformed Christian blogger Tim Challies, who’s hardly considered a radical:

Upon examination, though, the Mother Teresa portrayed by the media and popularized in our culture is glorified (soon to be beatified) and almost deified. A close examination of her beliefs and the work she did shows that her legacy may be little more than fiction.

Mother Teresa, as goes without saying, was a devout Roman Catholic. As such, some of her beliefs would necessarily have to stand at odds with core Christian beliefs. This has not appeared to trouble many Christians who continue today, even in Protestant churches, to uphold her as a prime example of Christian virtue, love and self-sacrifice. Her devotion to Catholic theology is obvious in her speeches and writing…we get a glimpse of beliefs that contradict so many gospel truths.

We see a belief in transubstantiation (that the bread of communion actually becomes the body of Christ) and her belief that Christ is present in this bread. We also see her belief that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is a mediator between God and ourselves (see Catholic Catechism, paragraph #969, #1172 and #494) and as such, plays a role in our salvation…we can only be left believing that she was more than a Catholic, but was a Universalist, believing essentially that all religion leads to the same God.

Time and again we see her expounding such universalist beliefs… A Simple Path is a compilation of the teachings and meditations of Mother Teresa. Labeled as a “unique spiritual guide” we would expect this book to contain unique insights into Scripture and into the Christian life by someone who is perceived as being a Christian spiritual giant. Instead,… Through the entire book there is never a hint that she relies on Christ alone for her salvation. Rather we read things like, “I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic” (Page 31).

Consider also the following quote from another source, “I love all religions. … If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there.” Or in another place, “All is God — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., all have access to the same God.” We see, then, that Mother Teresa held beliefs that contradict many Biblical principles… What, then, is the importance of debunking the myth of Mother Teresa?

The answer is this. Pastors of Protestant churches around the world continue to speak of Mother Teresa in saintly terms. They hold her up as the ultimate example of self-sacrifice for the sake of the gospel. From the pulpits they discuss how she responded to Christ’s Great Commission to spread the gospel to all lands. The reality, though, is that if she preached at all, she preached a false religion. In so doing she provides us with an example not of a Christian responding to God’s call, but an example of deeds of charity and compassion completely separated from the Truth. (Online source)

Well, as I already showed you in Rick Warren, Mother Teresa, And “All You Need Is Love”, one of those “Pastors of Protestant churches around the world [who] continue to speak of Mother Teresa in saintly terms” is Rick Warren himself. Consider the below tweet from a year ago:

(Online source)

Ever the promoter, the link takes us to Time magazine’s Special Commemorative hardcover book Mother Teresa: The Life and Works of a Modern Saint, with introduction by Rick Warren. If you’ve read it, as I have, you’ll quickly see from his introduction that Rick Warren does indeed hold up Mother Teresa “as the ultimate example of self-sacrifice for the sake of the gospel” as Tim Challies just suggested above.

Sadly now Russell Moore, the Southern Baptist Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice-President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has just done so as well. In closing this, for now, I leave you with the words of Mother Teresa from my personal copy of the particular book from which I quote below. What you’ll see is the result of the delusions received by someone who devoted her life to practicing the neo-Gnostic divination of CSM.

Notice carefully that Mother Teresa’s practice of the crown jewel of CSM, a form of meditation in an altered state of consciousness commonly known as Contemplative/Centering Prayer (CCP), led her straight into the quasi-Christian Universalism of the Love Wins mythology of Rob Bell. A gospel of goodness with its resulting denial of the exclusive claims of the genuine Gospel of Jesus Christ:

We never try to convert those who receive [aid from her organization] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men — simply better — we will be satisfied. Growing up in love they will be nearer to God and find him in his goodness. Every human being comes from the hand of God and we all know what is the love of God for us.

My religion is everything to me but for every individual, according to the grace God had given that soul. God has his own ways and means to work in the hearts of men and we do not know how close they are to him but by their actions we will always know whether they are at his disposal or not.

Whether you are a Hindu, a Moslem or a Christian, how you live your life is the proof that you are fully his or not. We must not condemn or judge or pass words that will hurt people. Maybe a person has never heard of Christianity. We do not know what way God is appearing to that soul and what way God is drawing that soul, and therefore who are we to condemn anybody?

It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation. This is the way God comes into his life.[2]

I don’t know if Russell Moore knew this was Mother Teresa’s gospel of universalism; but I do know this: Those are not the words of a disciple of Jesus Christ. As loving of mankind as this might appear on the surface I think you’ll realize this is very definitely not the Gospel preached by Christ and His Apostles and which would cost each of them—save John—their lives. It’s simply not in line with the Great Commission:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” 
(Matthew 28:19-20)

Well, I’m here to tell you in the Lord that it’s well past time for us to begin doing what we can to stop all of this romanticizing of apostates in the Christian community and start telling their followers the truth…

___________________________________________________________________________
End notes:

[1] Mother Teresa, Mother Teresa: In My Own Words [New York: Gramercy, 1997], 63, emphasis mine.

[2] Kathryn Spink, Mother Teresa, Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations and Prayers [New York: HarperCollins, 1983], 81, 82, emphasis mine.

See also:

RICK WARREN WANTS US TO LEARN FROM ROMAN CATHOLIC MYSTIC HENRI NOUWEN

KAY WARREN, HENRI NOUWEN, AND CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUALITY

SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION USING MORE COUNTER REFORMATION CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUALITY

Print this entry

By Apprising Ministries correspondent Christine Pack of Sola Sisters 

Author Anne Rice, best known for her Vampire Lestat chronicles which were popular in the 90s, rather famously “converted” to Christianity in 1998…which she has now publicly rejected.

Anne Rice was interviewed by the White Horse Inn a few years back in which she talked about once again embracing her “childhood faith” (Roman Catholicism).  The host of White Horse Inn, which is the teaching radio ministry of Michael Horton, for some reason did not challenge Rice’s Roman Catholic views.  Now, I have had White Horse Inn recommended to me many times in the past few years as a great resource for teaching.  But the truth is, that one interview so completely threw me, that I simply could not listen to White Horse Inn anymore after that.

 

I’m not clear on the reasoning over at White Horse Inn on why they did not challenge Anne Rice on her (wrong) beliefs at the time they interviewed her, but I think Anne Rice’s recent – and very public – rejection of “Christianity” underscores in a big way why Christians are cautioned against yoking with unbelievers (2 Cor 6:14-15):

“Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?  And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?”  

This passage cautions that we must not “yoke” with those who do not hold fast to the true faith that was “once for all entrusted to the saints”……whether that would be in marriage….or in public, ecumenical love-fests between Protestants and Catholics.

 

The truth is that it’s not Anne Rice who gets besmirched by all this, not really.  It’s not even White Horse Inn, not ultimately.  The bottom line is that God has been robbed of his glory in this whole mess.  Somewhere along the way, it was decided that it was better to give a public forum to someone who is far, far outside of orthodoxy than to hold God up rightly and in a way that is honoring to him and to his character and nature.  Now, do we always do that perfectly?  Of course not.  But White Horse Inn got on a very slippery slope when they decided to give a then practicing Roman Catholic a very public forum.  I know that they had no way of knowing how this would turn out, but seriously, why wasn’t the fact that Anne Rice was a confessing Roman Catholic enough to give them pause?  I’m not trying to throw White Horse Inn under the bus on this, but whether they know it or not, their radio program is held in very high esteem in reformed circles; and I would urge them, as gently and lovingly as possible, to be as cautious and biblical as possible in how they make decisions on whom they will share their teaching platform with.

 

Chris Rosebrough, host of the Christian radio program Fighting For The Faith, sets a good example on how to handle guests with whom he has significant doctrinal differences (i.e., Doug Pagitt, Whiskey Preacher, etc.).  There are instances when Rosebrough will NOT challenge a controversial guest publicly while they are on the air with him.  But what he will do is come on the air after any such shows have aired, and say something like, okay, I had this guest on who has different, even heretical beliefs, and I didn’t challenge him because I want his beliefs to be known…..BUT, just so you know, this is outside of orthodoxy, these are NOT Christian beliefs.

 

I can’t say that during the time I listened to White Horse Inn that I ever heard them do this.  After the Anne Rice interview, I did listen to their show the next day to see if they would say anything about her Roman Catholic beliefs, but they did not.  And that was when I stopped listening to White Horse Inn.  I wasn’t angry, I just didn’t want to inadvertently get bad teaching that would confuse me.  You see, I was a fairly new Christian, and though I was slowly learning, through studying God’s Word, how to discern good teaching from bad, I knew that there was a lot I didn’t know.  But, I was starting to realize that good teaching mixed up with bad teaching was a bad combination for me, because, when listening to someone I regarded as very sound and biblical, I had a tendency to let my guard down. So White Horse Inn got shelved.

 

Let me close by saying that the issue in all this is not how to handle guests, who to share a platform with, etc.  The issue is that Anne Rice is not a straying sheep…she is in much greater peril than that. She needs life-giving truth, and she needs to repent of her idolatrous view of God and humble herself before the one true God…the One I fear she has never known. 

The original post complete with a comments section appears here.

See also:

WHAT DOES THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACH ABOUT THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION?

ROMAN CATHOLICISM: ANOTHER GOSPEL OF BAPTISM AND SACRAMENTS 

Anne Rice’s Interview on White Horse Inn

A Discussion Between The White Horse Inn Producers and A Concerned Listener

A Former Roman Catholic Priest Shares His Testimony

The Problem With N.T. Wright

Chris Rosebrough – Fighting For The Faith

Print this entry

In his most recent article at Daniel’s Place Chew looks at the sad saga surrounding Ray Comfort and his sharing the platform with heretics such as John Avanzini, Jesse Duplantis and Rod Parsley at the recent Inspiring Excellence conference (IEC).

The interested reader is referred No, Ray Comfort the Issue Is Not Closed for more detail on that, and for a shocking expose concerning the message of divination that Avanzini brought to IEC Apprising Ministries refers you to John Avanzini and His Talking Stones by Ingrid Schlueter.

In this article from Daniel Chew referenced below he takes us through a Biblical look at the often misunderstood doctrine of separation:

Up till now, I have not been discussing the issue with regards to the doctrine of separation which Pastor Ken has been mentioning quite a lot, and that is because I was waiting for Ray Comfort to get through the conference, or at least his slot for the conference to pass, so as to give him the benefit of the doubt. Now, the conference is more or less over, and the fallout has began since Comfort did not truly share the Gospel in the way that Jesus did and the false ‘gospel’ of the Word-faith cult (which is antithetical to the Gospel) was not addressed.

I cannot say I am surprised, and although I may sound cynical, it is to be expected since that is the way of human nature, which thus brings in the doctrine of Separation. The emergence of the New Evangelical movement in the 1950s/60s rejected the historic Protestant and Fundamentalist doctrine of Separation and through this, reap the bitter fruits of compromise and apostasy in the coming generations. (Online source)

You can read the entire article by Daniel Chew and join in the discussion here.

Print this entry

This contemplative mysticism originally flowered in the antibiblical monastic traditions of apostate Roman Catholicism and in this message Bennett, who was himself a Roman Catholic priest in Trinidad for 22 years, informs us:

This program is about Catholic Mysticism and the Emerging Church may be one of the most important topics that we have addressed. Catholic mysticism has helped mightily to transform the New Age Movement from being counter-culture to being embraced by Evangelicals, and Western civilization as such.

Catholic mysticism has affected almost every facet of life without being noticed or perceived. Tony Jones, a typical leader of the Emergent Church movement, accepts channels of Catholic mysticism. His mystical techniques are now taught to pastors and youth ministers and are penetrating much of what is called Evangelicalism.

This same Roman Catholic mysticism is right now receiving a rebirth in the neo-monastic movement championed by emerging church icon Shane Claiborne who is currently gaining stature within the youth groups of your evangelical churches.

See also:

SHANE CLAIBORNE AND THE GOSPEL OF GOODNESS

DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR MYSTIC TEACHING COMES FROM: THOMAS MERTON

MEDITATING ON CONTEMPLATIVE/CENTERING PRAYER

DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR MYSTIC TEACHING COMES FROM: RICHARD FOSTER

Print this entry

Bennett was himself a Roman Catholic priest for 22 years before the Lord set him free from the religious bondage of the Church of Rome and called him into the glorious liberty of the sons of God.

In this clip he references this chart and though the clip here is only ten minutes long you can see the entire presentation right here.

Print this entry

Here is the link to Declaration “Dominus Iesus" on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, signed by the current papal pretender when he was simply “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, where you can read for yourself the squalid and putrid compromise of apostate Roman Catholicism. As Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger has now simply reaffirmed Vatican II’s decree that all Protestant churches "cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense".

O sure, our spiritual Benedict Arnold would condescend and say we have some truth but still we need to come back under his authority in the Mother Church. Well this man of God shouts: Give me spiritual liberty, or give me death! What in the world is it going to take for God to provoke nearly comatose $evangelical$ leaders to finally stand up against this serpentine shill of Satan who has the audacity to claim the position of the Holy Spirit as Vicar of Christ?

And having already written about this at Apprising Ministries in The Deceivers, today I again ask you to consider: Just what exactly would be the point of religious “dialogue” with the Church of Rome when she has absolutely NO intention whatsoever of ever changing her pompous positions of usurped authority?

In the video link “Who Is Ratzinger Pope Benedict XVI?” below my dear friend and former Roman Catholic priest Richard Bennett of Berean Beacon tells you some more about the man who compiled the book, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) in which he declares his position in section 882:

The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and physical source foundation of the unity, both of the Bishops and whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff by reason of his office as vicar of the Christ and pastor over the whole Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

Now I tell you this, if the diabolical and despicable Church of Rome who–right in line with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be the one true Church of our Lord upon the face of this earth–really is God’s Church, then Jesus Christ would owe Judas the betrayer an apology.

See also:

THE HOLY AND CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

WE ARE NOT BROTHERS!

THE NON-GOSPEL OF SACRAMENTS AND BAPTISM IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

Print this entry

Redefining Preaching As “Progressive Dialogue” In Community

Here’s another example of the neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church denying Sola Scriptura right in line with apostate Roman Catholicism and looking just like her harlot mother the man-loving semi-pelagian Church of Rome. The following comes from the 2005 book Preaching Re-Imagined [read:redefined] by Emergent Church innovator Doug Pagitt who is “pastor of Solomon’s Porch–a holistic, missional, Christian faith community–in Minneapolis, MN” (back flap).

Now I realize this will probably come as a shock to many of you but amazingly enough–probably because allegedly he’s not such an influential leader in the Emergent rebellion against the Bible–Pagitt’s book is endorsed by Guru Brian McLaren who prophesies:

Ten years from now Christian leaders around the world will be talking about “preaching versus speaching” and progressive dialogue, and they’ll point to this book as the one that stimulated thinking about what happens in church gatherings week by week (back cover).

And here’s another Dan Kimball sighting. Kimball is also endorsing a good many books himself these days. He tells us, well…kinda, sorta:

We need to preach, but perhaps we have turned contemporary preaching into something it wasn’t meant to be. Doug is not afraid to ask the hard questions, but he doesn’t stop there – he gives hope for what re-imagined preaching could be (ibid).

Wow! Man alive, that’s a pretty powerful postmodern profession there. “Perhaps we have,” waffles Dan. And he hints to us that Pagitt “gives hope for what re-imagined [repainted, redefined] preaching could be.” Um, unless you disagree and then…well – ah, just maybe it might not be. Seriously; have the critical thinking skills among evangelical leaders really sunk this low that they can’t see through this stuff?

The Children Will Look Like Their Mother

Now you need to understand that the authority structure for the Church of Rome is three-fold. Rome does give lip service to the authority of the Bible, then there is the College of Bishops aka the Teaching Magisterium headed by the Roman Pontiff–the Pope–“the Vicar of Christ” and finally Tradition. You can see this for yourself in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But any of us who are studied up on Roman Catholicism know that the Magisterium trumps both the Scriptures and Tradition because it is the actual final authority which interprets both of them.

And this is precisely why the Reformers used Sola Scriptura in the way they did holding that the Bible speaks for God so it alone is the final authority for doctrine as His infallible Word to His Church and mankind. Now note how Doug Pagitt in his “reimagined” pseudo-Christianity is teaching the fools who follow him that the Bible is only “an” authoritative member of these new gatherings of faith communities.

Oddly enough, as I pointed out in The Living Room Emerging Church Gatherings and Wiccan Gatherings, the above description of these so-called “Christ-followers” sounds more Wiccan than it does Christian. Pagitt will explain, in agreement with Rob Bell, that the Scriptures are to be interpreted by the community. This is actually quite similar to Rome’s own warped and toxic position, which explains why the Emergent Church is so egregiously ecumenical.

He begins with a lesson he supposedly learned from his 13-year-old son. During a family discussion “one night” Pagitt says he went and “got a Bible” simply to “make a point.” And when his son “saw the Bible,” [he] said, ‘Oh boy, here comes a speech’” (195). From that statement Pastor Pagitt makes an interesting observation:

There are those who recognize the introduction of the Bible into a conversation as an indication that a speech is coming and therefore a signal that any real dialogue is about to come to a halt (ibid.)

Here’s then we see difference between Pagitt’s Emergent man-centered view of Holy Scripture and my God-centered view. Where Pagitt sees this statement as negative and stifling conversation I would see that the young man recognized the Bible as having inherent authority. Therein lies the impassible chasm between the neo-orthodox subjective use of Scripture and the adherence to Sola Scriptura.

The authority of the Word of God should shut down man’s conversation. As it is written – I will bow down toward your holy temple and will praise Your Name for Your love and Your faithfulness, for You have exalted above all things Your Name and Your Word (Psalm 138:2). This certainly includes men’s conversations, how ever noble they might be. And – my heart trembles at Your Word (Psalm 119:161). O that the Lord had but even a few of those people within leadership in the nearly comatose American Christian Church!

Yet Pagitt will use this to go on and set up his straw man in order to attack it in the quote to follow as he says we need to “live a faith where the Bible has a more authoritative role than that of a cold, dead record of the past” (194). But as you can now see this is not the way the historic orthodox Christian Church views the Bible in the first place. But like any cult the Emergent Church, following in the footsteps of the counterfeit Christian Roman Catholic religion, must undermine the authority of God’s Word to advance their perverse people-pleasing interpretations of it.

And so it is with Pagitt as he will then say:

The Bible ought to live as an authoritative member of our community, one we listen to on all topics of which she speaks. Understanding the Bible as a community member means giving the Bible the freedom to speak for herself. Sometimes that will mean getting out of the way and putting less effort into interpreting Scripture for others, instead letting them carry out their own relationship with what the Bible says (195).

Just perfect for a “me” generation but is actually the fetid fruit of years of Bible studies where we all discussed what particular verses of the Bible meant to each of us. However, God’s Word cuts right across this kind of selfish flesh-pandering teaching because the absolute Truth is that the glorious and majestic, great and mighty LORD God Almighty–Creator of the universe–couldn’t care one whit what degenerate and rebellious creatures think He ought to do.

Sound harsh and unloving? Not to the genuine Christian. So if you’re feeling a rising anger at what I have just said then you’d best follow the Biblical admonition of 2 Corinthians 13:5 – Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you–unless indeed you fail the test (NASB)? For you see, the true child of God knows that the most loving thing the Lord could do is to save us from ourselves.

We who truly love Jesus also know that the Great Shepherd has lovingly and ever so gently told His sheep–not the sharpest knives in the animal drawer–that He gave us His Word so we might attain – wisdom and discipline; for understanding words of insight; [and] for acquiring a disciplined and prudent life, doing what is right and just and fair (Proverbs 1:2-3). You see God is not having “the conversation” with us. No, rather He is instructing us to – let the wise listen and add to their learning, and let the discerning get guidance (v.5).

But the Lord is also warning mankind in no uncertain mystery-embracing terms that – The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline. (Proverbs 1:7)

Print this entry

Yet I wonder how our fundamentalist brethren will feel about this comment from Purpose Driven Pope Rick Warren posted by my brothers over at Symphony of Scripture. What a raging hypocrite is Protestant pretender Rick Warren, one the most prominent pastors in the Slowly Becoming Catholic–itself the largest allegedly "Protestant" denomination here in pagan America–who urinates on the blood of the Reformers and openly promotes apostate Roman Catholicism as Christian.

Here is what Warren has spewed about godly men like my dear friend and brother in Christ, Richard Bennett, himself enslaved by Rome as a priest for 22 years, until by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, the Lord mercifully delivered him into the glorious liberty of the true sons of God:

Now the word “fundamentalist” actually comes from a document in the 1920s called the Five Fundamentals of the Faith. And it is a very legalistic, narrow view of Christianity… Rick Warren

You see that; it’s very Legalistic to hold to the "Five Fundamentals of the Faith". O just keep talking Rick, may the Lord show you to be what you really are–The New Charles Finney–while you continue to promote your semi-pelagian Purpose Driven religion of man-love masquerading as Christianity.

And so it begins… 

Print this entry

By Richard Bennett

The early Church understood apostolic doctrine as the written Word of the Apostles as it was contained in the Scriptures. “From the very beginning of the post-apostolic age with the writings of what are known as the Apostolic Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabas) there was an exclusive appeal to the Scriptures for the positive teaching of doctrine and for its defense against heresy. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. In the writings of the apologists such as Justin Martyr and Athenagoras the same thing is found. There is no appeal in any of these writings to the authority of a verbal or extra-biblical tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation. It is with the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late second century that the concept of an apostolic tradition, which is handed down in the Church in oral form, is first encountered. The word “tradition” simply means teaching. Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the bishops that were given orally were rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures. Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the apostolic tradition that was orally preached in the churches, and it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture. There was no doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic tradition that is not found in Scripture. In other words, the apostolic tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the Apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing, and the Scriptures had since that day become the pillar and ground of the Church’s faith.” (1)

From the earliest times a substantial part of the New Testament was available to the believers. The four Gospels were known and read in the churches. The letters of the Apostles Paul and Peter were circulated and used even while the Apostles lived. These New Testament books did not become authoritative because they were being formally accepted as Scripture by any church or group of churches; rather the believers received them as inspired because under the witness of the indwelling Holy Spirit, they recognized the very Word of God. The life of Christ Jesus, in His role as the final and full revelation of God, culminated in the New Testament canon. It expressed the final prophetic Word of grace and truth given in Him. The early believers accepted the Written Word of the New Testament, as the words of Christ Jesus Himself—unchangeable, final, finished and authoritative.

God’s people in the first three centuries after Christ universally accepted what we now know as the New Testament. They “received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.” (2) There were indeed controversies over individual books, but this confirmed rather than impeded the certainty that they had God’s final Written Word “which was once delivered unto the saints.” (3) The Lord’s people universally knew the contents of the canon of the New Testament well before the local Council of Hippo formally accepted it in 393A.D, and before the provincial Council of Carthage in 397A.D.

Extensive growth and severe Persecution
The spread of the Christian faith during the first three centuries was extensive and rapid. In the providence of God, the main reasons for this were the fidelity and zeal of the preachers of the Gospel, the heroic deaths of the martyrs, and the translation of the Scriptures into the languages of the Roman world. Under Emperor Septimius Severus (193-211) Christians suffered appallingly. The most severe persecution was under the Emperor Diocletian and his co-regent, Galerius, during the years 303-311. The historian Philip Schaff states that, “all copies of the Bible were to be burned; all Christians were to be deprived of public office and civil rights; and last, all, without exception, were to sacrifice to the gods upon pain of death.” (4) Yet far from exterminating the Christians and the Gospel, the persecution purified those who preached and increased their ability to give the Gospel message.

Early church in northern Italy and southern France
The Vaudois withdrew from the areas in and around Rome to the valleys of the Cottian Alps during the persecutions of the early church. (5) These Bible believers always held to the Scripture as their only authority, which was evident in their faith and practice for centuries, from the time of their withdrawal to the valleys of the Cottian Alps.

The testimony of their lives over the centuries shows that the Vaudois and others had chosen to follow the authority of the Bible as their rule of life. By the early tenth century the Paulicians, who later became known as the Albigenses, have a similar history of always having had the orthodox Scripture, adhering to it, and through it making many converts to true biblical faith.

It is to be regretted that most of the information concerning the Paulicians comes through their enemies. The entire people were called Paulicians as following the apostle Paul. It was in the country of the Albigenses, in the Southern provinces of France, that the Paulicians were most deeply implanted. The faith of the Paulicians lived on in Languedoc and along the Rhône as the Christianity of the Cathars, and, perhaps, also among the Waldenses. The popes persecuted them and all literary and other traces of them, as far its possible, were destroyed. “The visible assemblies of the Paulicians, of Albigeois, were extirpated by fire and sword; and the bleeding remnant escaped by flight, concealment, or Catholic conformity. In the state, in the church, and even in the cloister, a latent succession was preserved of the disciples of St. Paul; who protested against the tyranny of Rome, and embraced the Bible as the rule of faith, and purified their creed from all the visions of the Gnostic theology”. (6)

The Paulicians were accused of being Manichaeans, and there has been prejudice against them because of this. It is now clearly known that the Paulicians were not Manichaeans. (7) Turning to the doctrines and practices of the Paulicians we find that they made constant use of the Old and New Testaments. They had no orders in the clergy as distinguished from laymen by their modes of living, their dress, or other things; they had no councils or similar institutions. Their teachers were of equal rank. They strove diligently for the simplicity of the apostolic life. They opposed all image worship, which was practiced in the Roman Catholic Church. They considered the ‘miraculous relics’ as a heap of bones and ashes, destitute of life and of virtue. They held to the orthodox view of the Trinity; and to the human nature and substantial sufferings of the Son of God. (8)

The Vaudois
The Vaudois as we saw earlier were already extant in the early post apostolic times. They are sometimes called Waldenses, after the name of one of their famous leaders, Peter Waldo of Lyon also known as Peter Valdès. It was the received opinion among the Waldenses that they were of ancient origin and truly apostolic. “They call themselves,” says David of Augsburg, “successors of the apostles, and say that they are in possession of the apostolic authority, and of the keys to bind and unbind”. (9) Theodore Beza, the Reformer of the sixteenth century, voices the sentiment of his times, when he said, “As for the Waldenses, I may be permitted to call them the very seed of the primitive and purer Christian church, since, they are those that have been upheld, as is abundantly manifest, by the wonderful providence of God, so that neither those endless storms and tempests by which the whole Christian world has been shaken for so many succeeding ages, and the Western part so miserably oppressed by the Bishop of Rome, falsely so called; nor those horrible persecutions which have been expressly raised against them, were able so far to prevail as to make them bend, or yield a voluntary subjection to the Roman tyranny and idolatry”. (10)

The first distinguishing principle of the Waldenses bore on daily conduct, and was summed up in the words of the apostle: “We ought to obey God rather than men.” The second distinguishing principle was the authority and popular use of the Holy Scriptures. Here again the Waldenses anticipated the Reformation. The Bible was a living book, and there were those among them who could quote the entire book from memory.

The third principle was the importance of preaching and the right of believing men to exercise that function. Peter Waldo and his associates were preachers. To these fundamental principles the Waldenses, on the basis of the Sermon on the Mount, added the rejection of oaths, the condemnation of purgatory and prayers for the dead. There are only two ways after death, the Waldenses declared, the way to heaven and the way to hell. (11) The Waldensian movement touched many people, through many centuries and attracted converts from many sources. Many Roman Catholics were won over and some of them doubtless brought some error with them.

Early Asian Churches
The expansion of Christianity in Asia is a very fascinating story. About this Moffett writes, “Before the end of the first century the Christian faith broke out across the borders of Rome into ‘Asian’ Asia. Its roots may have been as far away as India or as near as Edessa …just across the Euphrates. From Edessa….the faith spread to another small kingdom three hundred miles further east across the Tigris River….near ancient Nineveh. By the end of the second century, missionary expansion had carried the church as Far East as Bactria, what is now northern Afghanistan and mass conversions of Huns and Turks in Central Asia were reported from the fifth century onward. By the end of the seventh century,..” (12)

Early church Ireland and Europe
The work the Gospel preacher Patrick and his associates in Ireland was extremely difficult. He came up against the old pagan religion of the Druids. The people believed in the Druids as pagan priests who mediated for them in the things of the spirit. He also wrote about anxious journeys, difficulties, and disappointments. He combated the powers of darkness in the priesthood of the Druids. He relied on Christ Jesus and the glorious Holy Spirit given to convict people of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. He understood grace to be entirely from God. Over the course of 60 years, Patrick went the length and breadth of Ireland preaching the Gospel and, like Timothy and Titus before him; he ordained elders and established churches. It is reckoned that at the end of his days there were 365 churches across the island. These were established, as were the churches in Biblical times, with the people served by a pastor or elder. The authority of the pastor was one of service, rather than lording it over the people. It was like that which was established in the pages of Scripture.

Likewise, the monasteries set up by Patrick, were totally unlike the monasteries that were established under the Church of Rome. These monasteries were quite like those of the Vaudois and other early Christian churches of northern Italy and southern France, whereby men came aside for some years to be trained in the Scriptures and to learn how to evangelize and to bring the Gospel to others. Later in their lives these men married and had families. These men were not forsaking the world for some retreat of inner holiness; rather, they were men who saw light and life in Christ Jesus and wished to evangelize others with the true Gospel. Because of these monasteries and the churches that Patrick founded in Ireland, Ireland became known as the “Isle of Saints and Scholars”.

There were more than 600 years of fruitfulness in the clarity of the Gospel message cherished by Patrick, and those who worked with him were to live on for many years after him. There were many famous missionaries like Patrick such as Columba and his companions who set out for Scotland in 563. Then there was Columbanus with his companions that went to evangelize France and Germany in 612. Kilian and the brothers that accompanied him went as missionaries to Franconia and Wurzburg in 680. Forannan and twelve brothers with him set out to bring the Gospel to the Belgian frontier in 970. (13)

Irish missionaries carried the Gospel with the same truthfulness as Patrick’s to Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and Italy and beyond.

Early church in the city of Rome
The Papal Church is a magnificently rich, splendidly housed political and ecclesiastical power headquartered in Rome. It stands in stark contrast to what started there in the first century with some pastors ministering to small congregations. The differences are graphic. The early home churches under their pastors looked to the authority of the Word as received in the gospel accounts of the life of the Lord and the writings of the Apostles, together with the Old Testament. These pastors and churches had a true and living faith in God’s grace through the Gospel. From the letter of Paul to the Romans one sees that the Gospel was faithfully treasured in those early Roman congregations. At the beginning of his letter, the Apostle commends the believers at Rome for their faith, “First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son.…” (14) Such approvals are infrequent with the Apostle Paul. The faith of the churches of Rome continued to be well known and faithfully lived for two hundred fifty years more under very adverse situations, including extreme persecutions, the most famous of which took place under Emperor Nero in the 64 A.D. Totally unimaginable for these early believers in Rome would be the present concept of “the most holy Roman Pontiff.” Unthinkable likewise would be the belief that rituals could confer the grace of the Holy Spirit and that Mary, the mother of the Lord, could be addressed in prayer as “the All Holy One”. (15) In the fellowship of believers, a top heavy hierarchical system, from layperson to priest, from to priest to bishop, from bishop to cardinal and cardinal to Pope would have been totally abhorrent, as from the world and not from Christ who said, “One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.” (16)

The persecution of Christians of which we mentioned earlier ended in 313 A.D. In that year the emperors Constantine in the West and Licinius in the East proclaimed the Edict of Milan. This decree established the policy of religious freedom for both paganism and Christianity. Four vice-prefects governed the Roman Empire under Constantine. Accordingly, under his authority the Christian world was to be governed from four great cities, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Rome. Over each city there was set a Patriarch, who governed all the elders of his domain. (This was later to be a called a diocese.) The mind of and purpose of Constantine was that the Christian churches were to be organized in a fashion similar to the government of the Empire.

The respect enjoyed by the various Christian elders was usually in proportion to the status of the city in which they resided. Since Rome was the most powerful and prestigious city in the world at the time, it stood to unbiblical reason that the most prominent and influential bishop should be the Bishop of Rome. Gradually the honor and respect given to the Bishop of Rome grew, and these bishops in turn desired this adulation from bishops of other cities. The church was in such decline that with the passing of third and fourth centuries the bishops of Rome began to demand recognition for the exalted position they now considered their possession.

Gradual rise of Papal Rome
In the fourth and fifth centuries as the true Gospel was watered down, its place was taken by ritualism and ceremony. The true worship of God and the inner conviction of the Holy Spirit gave way to formal rites and idolatry. Pagan practices were also introduced, whitewashed with an external form of Christianity. From the beginning, the Gospel produced an internal unity among the believers, but with the substitution of ritualism for the Gospel came the insistence on an external, visible unity for the church. The clergy-laity division of the church became the accepted base. This further devolved into a hierarchy of the ruling clergy. By the end of the fifth century, a sacrificing priesthood in which the priest presumed to mediate between God and men had replaced the early ministers of the Gospel who had taught the Scripture. The Church was no more the fellowship of believers under Christ Jesus, united by the Gospel, true worship, and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but rather an institution dominated by a hierarchy of bishops and elders. (17)

Simultaneously, from early to mid-fifth century, the city of Rome was beset first by Alaric the Goth, who captured it in 410 but did not stay to rule; Attila the Hun, who in 452 was persuaded by Leo, the then Bishop of Rome (440-461), to stop his advance and leave Italy altogether; and finally Genseric, leader of the Vandals, who captured the city, but was persuaded by Leo to spare the lives of Romans. (18) Leo’s fame as Rome’s protector grew enormously as a result.

The position of Imperial Roman emperor by now had become clearly vacant. A vacuum had been established because the Imperial leadership had left Rome and none of the barbaric leaders had tried to set himself up in that position. Leo, as the Bishop of Rome, saw the opportunity that lay in front of him,
“Leo began to feel that the time had come to materialize the claims of Augustine regarding the temporal millennial kingdom of Christ, and with his avowed vested powers of loosing and binding openly to declare his right to the vacant throne as the fitting seat of Christ’s universal kingdom. In this way the Roman church pushed its way into the place of the Western empire, of which it is ‘the actual continuation.’ Thus the empire did not perish; it only changed its form. The pope became Caesar’s successor. This was a long stride forward.” (19)

Bishop of Rome becomes the Pope
The removal of the seat of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople in 330 A.D. enhanced marvelously the Bishop of Rome’s power. The ecclesiastical contest which had been going on for some time between Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Rome as to which was the greatest was now for most part confined to the dioceses of Rome and the new contender, Constantinople.

The barbarian invasions of the Western Roman Empire helped immeasurably to build the whole structure of papal Rome. The ten barbarian kingdoms that were a serious threat were the Alamanni, Franks, Visigoths, Burgundians, Suevi, Anglo-Saxons, Lombards, Heruli, Vandals, and the Ostrogoths. (20) The Emperor of Rome now lived in Constantinople; yet his armies uprooted and destroyed the Vandals and the Heruli, while simultaneously contending with the Ostrogoths, who continued their siege of Rome.

Clovis, King of the Franks, was the first of the barbarian princes to accept the faith proposed by the Church of Rome. In fulfillment of a vow that he had made on the battlefield when he defeated the Allemanni, Clovis was baptized in 496 A. D. in the Cathedral of Rheims. The Bishop of Rome gave him the title of “the eldest son of the Church.” In the sixth century, the Burgundians of Southern Gaul, the Visigoths of Spain, the Suevi of Portugal, and the Anglo-Saxons of Britain all followed suit in joining themselves to the religion of the Bishop of Rome. These barbaric kings and their peoples accepted easily the faith of Rome, which because it lacked the Gospel, was not very different in form and substance from their own pagan worship. All of these conversions advanced the power of the Roman Bishop. Then, too, these barbaric nations more easily accepted the religion of Rome because this city had traditionally been the seat of authority of the Caesars as masters of the world. The bishops of Rome now played their role as rightful heirs to the Caesars. The city that had been the seat of power for the Empire became the place for the Bishop to exercise his authority. More and more nations accepted his position.

Emperor Justinian I (527-565) was the one, more than anyone else, to establish the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. He did it in a formal and legal manner by bringing purely ecclesiastical edicts and regulations under the control of civil law.

Justinian’s decree did not create the office of the Pope but rather set the legal foundation for advancement in ruling power by the bishops of Rome. To allay the demise of the Imperial Empire, ecclesiastical unity was to be imposed by coercion if necessary, not the first time nor yet the last that religion would be used to buttress political positions. As proclaimed head of the Empire’s church, the job fell to the Bishop of Rome. The title of “Pope” began to fit the one who sat as “Bishop of Rome”, who now was free to use the civil sword of coercion given him by Justinian’s decree. Formerly, ecclesiastical unity came by the moral persuasion of the Gospel and the Scripture alone to save individuals who then would be salt and light to their civil societies. But such unbiblical ideas and methods as the Bishops of Rome had so willingly sought after and received could hardly produce something other than worldly corruption. It is no surprise then that soon the Bishop of Rome desired to reign like a king with worldly pomp and worldly power. The very thing that the Lord had warned against was now transpiring. “And he said unto them, the kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them…but ye shall not be so.…” (21) An account of Vatican’s use of religious and civil power is given on our Internet article called “An Overview of Papal History”.

A summary of the foundations of the Early Church
The world was floundering on its foundations when the Gospel of Christ was first preached. The national religions had not changed the heart and lives of mankind. People were destitute of spirit and of life. Fallacies and superstitions abounded to no avail. The vast Roman Empire brought in universality and some political unity, but no light and hope. Then the Christ Jesus came among men to save that which was lost and to give everlasting life. This is the greatest event the history of the world. The Old Testament Scriptures predicted it, Gospel of the New Testament proclaimed it.

The Lord’s followers starting at Jerusalem, proclaimed Him as the author of everlasting life. From the midst of a people who despised all nations, came forth a mercy that invited and embraced all men. Greeks and Romans and men and women from across the known world believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and came into new life in Him to the glory of His Name.

Peoples of Africa, Egypt, Gaul, Germany, Ireland Britain, and India had their eyes open to the Gospel by the conviction of the Holy Sprit by means of the Lord’s word. The Gospel proclaimed that salvation comes from Him alone by his grace as Lord. “God hath given to us eternal life.”

The Church began as a community of brothers and sisters and the Lord guided by a few of the brethren. The Gospels of the Lord Jesus Christ and the written letters of the Apostles settled the great questions of doctrine.

There was nothing arrogant or high and mighty as the apostles addressed the churches. The unity in the Lord is seen when in the many expressions that they used for example and the Acts of the Apostles it was written, “The apostles and elders and brethren send greetings unto the brethren.” We rejoice before the Lord God that the authentic Church had the true Gospel of God’s grace. Right across Europe and even Asia churches were established. Faith, consistent with the Scriptures is the means by which the believer enters into the salvation purchased the faithfulness and death of Christ Jesus. Therefore we rejoice that the Lord God is almighty and that there is good news for all who are “dead in trespasses and sins”. In the light of His Word we know, “the gospel of Christ…is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.…” (22) By nature we are all children of wrath, and by practice we are rebels against the Lord God and His Word. The perfect and just law of God condemned us all and the Lord God is not responsible to rescue any of us from His just wrath. Despite our sin nature and personal sin, the Lord God has given His beloved Son for all true believers. God is the All Holy One. His holiness is the distinguishing factor in all His essential characteristics. This is the reason why we need to be in right standing before the one and only All Holy God on the terms He prescribes. Turn to God in faith alone for the salvation that He alone gives, by the conviction of the Holy Spirit, based on Christ’s death and resurrection, and believe on Him alone, “to the praise of the glory of his grace.” The understanding of the Gospel causes us to proclaim in loving gratitude, “not unto us, o Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth’s sake.”

If in face of all of this you are intent on trusting in church and its traditions you are similar to the Pharisees in the Lord’s own time. The simple truth is just as the Lord spoke to these same Pharisees “I said therefore unto you that you shall die in your sins if you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sins.” (23) If you are intent in holding to this ‘faith’ in your church in practice you are denying His Person. Scripture is crystal clear, “for by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works as anyone should boast.” (24) It is the riches of His grace to show His graciousness, that He alone saves is the whole meaning of divine grace. The Father’s love is personal; He calls you by name and provides for you. He, the mighty God, the Father, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be separate, says the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.” (25)

Richard Bennett would like you to know that your questions and comments are welcome and be sure to visit his website at Berean Beacon

End Notes:

1. William Webster, “Sola Scriptura and the Early Church” http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sola_scriptura_early_church.htm
2. 1 Thessalonians 2:13
3. Jude 3
4. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1, Second Period, p. 34
5. George Stanley Faber, The History of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses (Fleet Street, London: R. B. Seeley & W. Burnside, 1838) Re-published by Church History Research & Archives, P O Box 38, Dayton, OH 45449
6. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire, V. p. 398
7. Modern Armenian scholars do not hesitate to correct this error (Ter Mkittsehain, Die Paulikianer im Byzantinischen in Armenien, Leipzig, 1893).
8. A History of the Baptists Vol 1. Chapter 4 John T. Christian A.M D.D Ll.D.
http://www.pbministries.org/History/John%20T.% 20Christian/vol1/history_04.htm
9. Preger, Der Tractat des David von Augsburg über die Waldensier. München, 1876
10. Moreland, History of the Evangelical Churches, 7
11. Vid Schaff, History of the Christian Church. V. Pt 1.502-504
12. Moffett xiv-xv. As cited on East of the Euphrates: Early Christianity in Asia, by T.V. Philip Chapter 2
http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1553&C=1361
13. For a more complete list, see Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 4, Ch. 2, “Conversion of Northern and Western Barbarians”, Sect. 15, “The Irish Church after St. Patrick. The Missionary Period”.
14. Romans 1:8-9
15. Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), Para. 2677, “By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the ‘Mother of Mercy,’ the All Holy One.”
16. Matthew 23:8.
17. J. A. Wylie, The History of Protestantism, originally published in 1878 (Kilkeel, N. Ireland: Mourne Missionary Trust, 1985) Vol. I, Book I, pp. 3-14. See also D’Aubigne, Book I, pp.1-34.
18. LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1950) Vol. I, p. 498.
19. Ibid.
20. The first seven are now known as Germany, France, Spain, Switzerland, Portugal, England, and Italy respectively.
21. Luke 22:25-26
22. Romans 1:16
23. John 8:24
24. Ephesians: 8-9
25. II Corinthians 6:17-18

Print this entry

In this clip they discuss their love for the Scriptures and provide an insight into its life changing power. As Bennett himself says:

As Roman Catholic priests we were in a system that held to the sacraments as the means of salvation and a system heavily laden with rituals of many kinds besides the sacraments – the sacramentals – and all the other paraphenalia. And now we are people proclaiming the Gospel and seeing lives change and that’s our intent, it is to make known the Gospel of Christ Jesus.

Be sure and visit Richard Bennett’s website Berean Beacon. And he would also like you to know that your comments or questions are greatly appreciated: info@bereanbeacon.org

Print this entry