Roman Catholicism: Bloody History of Christ's Martyrs

Martyr's Mirror: History of Christians being tortured and persecuted for Christ, much of which was done by the hands of the Roman Catholic Church--the one that people want to hold hands with today for "social justice":

People were banished out of their town or country, their goods confiscated,their books burned, their bodies burned alive ; others were hanged,or branded on their foreheads, all for disputing with Rome's doctrine on "infant baptism"(yes, today its such a non-issue!), the eucharist, etc.and instead holding to the Gospel.

Fox's Book of Martyrs: an example of Rome

"Dominicus, a learned soldier, having read several controversial writings, became a zealous Protestant, and retiring to Placentia, he preached the Gospel in its utmost purity, to a very considerable congregation. One day, at the conclusion of his sermon, he said, "If the congregation will attend to-morrow, I will give them a description of Antichrist, and paint him out in his proper colors."

A vast concourse of people attended the next day, but just as Dominicus was beginning his sermon, a civil magistrate went up to the pulpit, and took him into custody. He readily submitted; but as he went along with the magistrate, he made use of this expression: "I wonder the devil hath let me alone so long." When he was brought to examination, this question was put to him: "Will you renounce your doctrines?" To which he replied: "My doctrines! I maintain no doctrines of my own; what I preach are the doctrines of Christ, and for those I will forfeit my blood, and even think myself happy to suffer for the sake of my Redeemer." Every method was taken to make him recant for his faith, and embrace the errors of the Church of Rome; but when persuasions and menaces were found ineffectual, he was sentenced to death, and hanged in the market place."

Rome hasn't changed its doctrines. To join hands with it is to tread upon the blood of those who wouldn't side with the RCC and its horrific doctrines to save their lives. They were willing to be TORTURED for biblical doctrine at the hands of Rome. Why are so many "Evangelicals" willing to bow to Rome for lesser causes?

Spurgeon On the Roman Catholic Church: do you know the history?

With all this hand holding with Romanists and their sister, the Easter Orthodox, I'd like to remind folks of something Spurgeon said:

Quote:

We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never come from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men. (From The New Park Street Pulpit, Volume VII, page 225).

History has hitherto been written by our enemies, who never would have kept a single fact about us upon the record if they could have helped it, and yet it leaks out every now and then that certain poor people called Anabaptists were brought up for condemnation. From the days of Henry II to those of Elizabeth we hear of certain unhappy heretics who were hated of all men for the truth’s sake which was in them. We read of poor men and women, with their garments cut short, turned out into the fields to perish in the cold, and anon of others who were burnt at Newington for the crime of Anabaptism. Long before your Protestants were known of, these horrible Anabaptists, as they were unjustly called, were protesting for the "one Lord, one faith, and one baptism." No sooner did the visible church begin to depart from the gospel than these men arose to keep fast by the good old way. The priests end monks wished for peace and slumber, but there was always a Baptist or a Lollard tickling men’s ears with holy Scriptures, and calling their attention to the errors of the times. They were a poor persecuted tribe. The halter was thought to be too good for them. At times ill-written history would have us think that they died out, so well had the wolf done his work on the sheep. Yet here we are, blessed and multiplied; and Newington sees other scenes from Sabbath to Sabbath. As I think of your numbers and efforts, I can only say in wonder—what a growth! As I think of the multitudes of our brethren in America, I may well say, What hath God wrought! Our history forbids discouragement. (From The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 1881, Volume 2, page 249).

And:

I am astonished, and yet more astonished when I come to turn it over, at the want of earnestness that there is in the Protestantism of the present age. How do you imagine that Cardinal Wiseman pays for all his splendours, and that the Romish church is supported? Fools and slow of heart, ye find them much of their wealth. If he is to preach in any place, who is it that crowds the chapel full, and pays for admission? The Protestants; and the Protestantism of England is the pay-master of the Pope. I am ashamed that sons of the Reformers who have Smithfield still in their midst unbuilt upon, should bow themselves before the beast, and give so much as a single farthing to the shrine of the devil's firstborn son. Take heed to yourselves, ye Protestants, lest ye be partakers of her plagues; touch her not, lest ye be defiled. Give a drachm to her, or a grain of incense to her censors, ye shall be partakers of her adulteries and partakers of her plagues. Every time you pass the house of Popery let a curse light upon her head: Thus saith the Lord:—"Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

End quote.



Does anyone see Rome this way any more? Is anyone WILLING to speak out this way?

It is Rome who killed Christians for not submitting to its authority or baptism. Its Rome who has lied about Scripture and its Gospel, keeping its people from reading the Bible because they would be revealed for the horrific monstrosity it really is. Folks, Rome hasn't reformed and can't reform, because its DEAD.

James White On the Problems With the Manhattan Declaration

Blessedly, James White refused and rejects the Manhattan Declaration:

In part he states:

Quote:

....The general statements of the document relating to life, abortion, marriage, sexuality, and religious liberty, are well stated and timely. There is something reassuring in realizing that the concerns we have had are shared across a broad spectrum.

But there are a number of troubling things that I cannot get past in examining this document and considering its implications. When I see some of the leading ecumenists in the forefront of the documents' production, I am made uneasy, and for good reason. Great damage has been done to the cause of Christ by those who have sought to promote the Kingdom by compromising the gospel, the only power given to the church that can change hearts, and hence change societies. By relegating the gospel to a matter of opinion and difference, but not something that defines the Christian faith, these ecumenists have left their followers with a cause without power, a quest without a solution. And though their open-mindedness fits better with our current post-modern culture, from a biblical perspective, they have truly betrayed the apostolic example.

This document presents a Christianity ostensibly based upon bare Trinitarianism. I listened to Chuck Colson speak on the Hugh Hewitt program this afternoon. He made it very clear that this is, in fact, a theological document, despite the assertions of others that it is not. He was asked why Jews, Mormons, and others, were not invited to sign the document. He said they were not asked because this is a specifically Christian statement, quoting from the Christian scriptures. Once again we are led to the inevitable conclusion that "Christian" then is "Trinitarianism plus agreed upon historical truths such as the crucifixion and resurrection, but, most importantly, without any gospel content." It does no good to muddle this discussion with "Well, what about the medieval church" questions, since we are talking about a day and age when the issues are well known. We are not talking about a dark period of biblical ignorance. There is more light available today than ever before. And for many, the gospel is simply no longer part of the "non-negotiables."

But I am left confused by the inconsistency of the document. Mormons are not invited. Understandable, given that the LDS faith is the most polytheistic faith I've ever encountered. Trinitarians only need apply. I can fully understand that. So...why are we told toward the end of this Declaration that Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote from an explicitly Christian perspective? A brief visit to Martin Luther King's writings will reveal he was hardly orthodox even using the limited definition utilized by this Declaration. For example, writing in a paper while in seminary, Martin Luther King, Jr. said:

The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadaquate. To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental. To invest this Christ with such supernatural qualities makes the rejoinder: "Oh, well, he had a better chance for that kind of life than we can possible have." In other words, one could easily use this as a means to hide behind behind his failures. So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied.

So why put forth King as explicitly Christian, but not invite the Jehovah's Witnesses, who would "quite readily deny" the deity of Christ as well? Perhaps a document that identifies Papal actions as explicitly Christian actions can be excused for its inherent self-contradiction.

There is no question that all believers need to think seriously about the issues raised by this declaration. But what is the only solution to these issues? Is the solution to be found in presenting a unified front that implicitly says "the gospel does not unite us, but that is not important enough to divide us"? I do not think so. What is the only power given to the church to change hearts and minds? United political power? Or the gospel that is trampled under foot by every Roman Catholic priest when he "re-presents" the sacrifice of Christ upon the Roman altar, pretending to be a priest, an "alter Christus"? Am I glad when a Roman clergyman calls abortion murder? Of course. But it exhibits a real confusion, and not a small amount of cowardice, it seems, to stop identifying the man's false gospel and false teaching simply because you are glad to have a few more on the "right" side of a vitally important social issue.

This takes me back to my original response to the ECT document. I have seen so many re-organize their priorities in light of having made "common cause" with those who have a false gospel all in the name of doing social good. I am glad Rome retains elements of God's truth and morality. But when did being good or moral bring one salvation, as if anyone is ever truly good, or truly moral?

These are the matters that truly concern me about the Manhattan Declaration. Why does God have the right to determine human sexuality, marriage, and to define life itself? It all goes back to the gospel, does it not? If we are going to give a consistent, clear answer to our culture, we dare not find our power in a false unity that overshadows the gospel and cripples our witness.

End quote.

Justin Taylor, Reformer Blogger, Endorses The Manhattan Declaration

Another Reformer, Justin Taylor, has endorsed the Manhattan Declaration, calling it " a carefule, thoughtful statement, worthy of study and acceptance. I encourage you to read it and sign it."

Is he serious?? Agree that Romanists and EO's are brothers in Christ??? When they have a false gospel???? Is the doctrine of Justification optional???? Is salvation by GRACE ALONE in CHRIST ALONE merely one's own opinion????

Rome is welcoming you Reformers back with open arms. Here's one little secret: she hasn't reformed nor could she for she is an illegitimate church with a false gospel that can't save.

John MacArthur Refuses To Sign The Manhattan Declaration

At least one well-known bible expositor and pastor refused to sign the Manhattan Declaration (the fact it started in Tim Keller's city makes me wonder if he had a hand in bringing this together on some level): John MacArthur. Here's his response to why he wouldn't sign it. My question is, if I saw the same problems and he did too, as well as other solid Christians, why couldn't any of the signers?--this isn't hard to figure out....unless they agree with Roman Catholicism or they honestly haven't a clue WHAT the Gospel is.

The Manhattan Declaration
Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009
(By John MacArthur)

Here are the main reasons I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration, even though a few men whom I love and respect have already affixed their names to it:

• Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.

• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously. It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity.

• Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.

• The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.

• This is neither a novel approach nor a strategic stand for evangelicals to take. It ought to be clear to all that the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless Faith. I stand by what I wrote then.

In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.

John MacArthur

End quote.

So why WOULD these people like Joni Tada, Kay Arthur, Tim Keller, Al Mohler actually sign a document that calls Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as "brothers" and "fellow believers"? That fact is, any religion that holds to a works-based salvation is condemned by God and the one through whom that "gospel" (which is no gospel at all) is proclaimed, is condemned as well (Gal. 1:8-9).

Either these people know nothing of the RCC and its "gospel" (and therefore shouldn't be endorsing it) or they know nothing of The Gospel of Jesus Christ, or the Gospel and all doctrine related to it (total depravity, justification by faith, salvation by grace through faith; Jesus as the sole Author and Redeemer --no need for Mary), is merely optional.

Rome is welcoming these people with open arms but it hasn't changed. "Evangelicals" have. And Rome knows it.

Your Famous Evangelical Leaders Who Are Holding Hands With Roman Catholics

Look at this new inter-faith document.

My friend, who showed it to me rightly noted:

"Its basically Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox & Evangelicals finding common cause to unite over. What is interesting is looking at the list of original signers.. and how the evangelicals in signing proclaimed that Rome gave them the bible : "After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture...."

And how far they are willing to drop doctrinal differences for common cause & proclaim the other has the same gospel: "We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right - and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation - to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty."

In signing such a document they also show the world that they consider each other as fellow Christians."

She's right.

A news report noted,"The declaration lists the "fundamental truths" as the "sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the rights of conscience and religious liberty." Interesting they list these as fundamental truths--not about God, Scripture, Salvation, total depravity--so they can hold hands and still have "truth". But its not. They don't all serve the God of Scripture, nor have the only Gospel that can save. Take a look:

The Declaration states in part:

"We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image.

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right - and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation - to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty."

They ingore the history of the RCC toward biblical Christians--Baptists in particular, and how they slaughtered hundreds of thousands through its existance... and how these folks assume the RCC was the keeper of Truth.

Look at the signers of interest that are holding hands with ROME (a look at the document shows the Romanists signers as well, but I'm more interested in the "Evangelical Christian" signers):

Timothy George

Randy Alcorn

Kay Arthur

Gary Bauer

Joel Belz

Ken Boa

James Dobson

Jonathan Falwell

Wayne Grudem

Jerry Jenkins

Timmy Keller

Peter Kreeft

Josh McDowell

Al Mohler

Marvin Olasky

JI Packer

Cornelius Platinga

Dennis Rainey

Joni Eareckson Tada

Paul Young

Ravi Zacharias

These people are holding hands with Rome for what? Rights?? To what end? We who are in Christ are NOT of this world, and HIS kingdom is NOT of this world. We who are in Christ have NO SHARE with Romanists.

I recently quoted from John MacArthur on the doctrine of separation from unbelievers. Its worth a look.

Moreover, to agree that the Romanists have the same God as Christians is downright wrong. They have a works-based justification and salvation, a helpless and unapproachable Jesus who can't be separated from his mother, Mary; a co-redemptrix and fourth in the godhead (yes, according to their own RCC catechism, they insert Mary's name into the 4th commandment to not take the Lord Your God's name in vain; they also admit that what they believe about Jesus they apply to Mary).

Rome adds: works to grace, Mary to Jesus, the Pope to Scripture, purgatory to the cross.

For more info go to Berean Beacon.

Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--

Gal.1:7not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

Gal 1:10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

2Co 6:15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?

2Co 6:16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

2Co 6:17 Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you,

2Co 6:18 and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty."

Put Away Your Sentimental God

"A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to Him, crying out, 'Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession!' Jesus did not answer her a word!" Matthew 15:22

There are 'sentimental ideas of God' prevalent, which are dishonoring to Him. There are those who imagine that God's love means tenderness that cannot cause pain. They think that He cannot look a moment on suffering, without relieving it; that He must instantly hear and answer every cry for the removal of trouble.

Not such a God--is the God of the Bible! When suffering is the best thing for us--He is not too sympathetic to let us suffer--until the work of suffering is accomplished in us. He is not too kind to be silent to our prayers--when it is better that He should be silent for a time, to allow . . .
faith to grow strong,
self-confidence to be swept away, and
the evil in us--to be burned out in the furnace of pain!

There is a danger with all of us--our tenderness lacks strength. We cannot tolerate to see people suffer, and so we hasten to give relief--before the ministry of suffering is accomplished. We think of our mission to others, as being only 'to make life easier for them'. We are continually lifting away burdens, which it were better to have left resting longer on our friend's shoulder! We are eager to make life easy for our children--when it were better if it had been left hard.

We must learn that God does not deal with us in this 'sentimental' way. He is not too tender to see us suffer--if more suffering is needed to work in us the discipline that will make us like Christ!

Here we have the key of many of the 'mysteries of Providence'. Life is not easy for us--and God does not intend it to be easy!

Suppose for a moment, that God immediately gave us everything we ask for--and immediately removed every little pain, trouble, difficulty, and hardness that we seek to have removed; what would be the result on us? How selfish it would make us! We would become weak, unable to endure suffering, to bear trial, to carry burdens, or to struggle. We would be only children always--and would never rise into manly strength. God's over-kindness to us--would pamper in us all the worst elements of our nature, and would make us only poor driveling creatures!

On the other hand, however, God's wise and firm treatment of us, teaches us the great lessons which make us strong with the strength of Christ Himself.
He teaches us to yield our own will to Him.
He develops in us--patience, faith, love, hope and peace.
He trains us to endure hardness--that we may grow heroic, courageous and strong.

It is well for us to make careful note of this--that in all God's delays when we pray--His aim is some good in us.

At the least, we may always know that silence is not refusal--that God hears and cares, and that when our faith has learned its lessons--He will answer in blessing!

"The Lord disciplines the one He loves, and punishes every son whom He receives." Hebrews 12:6

"God disciplines us for our good--that we may share in His holiness." Hebrews 12:10

~Excerpts from J.R. Miller, "The Silent Christ" (Grace Gems)

God never wastes our pain, if we are in Christ and bow to His sovereignty.

YOU LOVE JESUS; GOOD FOR YOU, BUT WHICH ONE? by Ken Silva

For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. (2 Corinthians 11:4, NASB)

But Which Jesus Is It Whom You Claim To Love?

There is certainly no shortage of people claiming to “love Jesus” today; and, there’s also a veritable cornucopia of ideas about who this Person Jesus is as well. As most of you know, there are many different “Jesuses” running around all over the countryside these days. As we show you in Will The Real Jesus Please Stand Up the major views about Him that you are most likely to run into are quite varied–and surprising–to be sure.

The Jesus which is probably the most widely known in this pagan “postmodern” culture is the so-called “historical Jesus”. Let me be perfectly clear, this Jesus is just as much a myth as any of the “gods” of Greek mythology. And notice from our text above God warns us that there really is such a thing as another Jesus. Here I must also point out to you a vitally important point the Bible—the Word of our Creator—makes regarding the only way in which a sinner is saved from his sins.

Perhaps you’ve heard Acts 4:12 before — Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other Name under Heaven given to men by which we must be saved. Do you see: No other Name; we must be saved. Indeed, very narrow, and completely exclusive and definitive claims. The wise person is going to ask the key questi0n here: Because I must be saved, what Name are we talking about here? That answer is found two verses prior in Acts 4. We are clearly told that the “Name” being discussed concerning our salvation is: Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Entire article here.

Do not love the world nor the things in the world: Baptist "church" to spend $130 Million to Bait Unbelievers to Join

ORANGE COUNTY, Calif., Nov. 12 /Christian Newswire/ – First Baptist Church of Dallas recently announced plans to build a $130 million church campus with the intention of transforming the city and setting up a “beacon of truth.” House church leader Ken Eastburn commented saying the building will not be able to accomplish its goal, “I applaud First Baptist Church for desiring to impact their community, but we need to get beyond a consumer mentality when we think about transformation. Expensive church buildings do not communicate the transforming Truth of the Gospel, they enslave people to the consumerism of our culture.”

According to their website, the 1.5 million square foot campus will utilize innovative technology in the interest of environmental friendliness and will include a stone watering tower with a luminescent cross, a 3,000-seat worship center with 7 high-definition screens, a six- floor education building for youth and children’s ministries, two side-by-side gymnasiums, and an outdoor concert space. According to church fundraising experts, it will be the most expensive church building program the United States has ever seen.

“Attractive buildings, entertaining preachers, and concert-like music have become staples in churches around the country in their effort to reach out to the lost,” says Eastburn, “The problem is that these churches are reinforcing the very things that are entrapping people and keeping them from a transforming relationship with Christ. The church cannot curb consumerism by leveraging consumerism.”

End quote. More here.

While I can't endorse Eastburn's The Well, since I don't know about them, the point he makes is right.

So all of you who are just dying to renew your city, listen up. This isn't the way to do it. Its not the way they did it in Scripture. We are not of the world. It is the GOSPEL that saves, not pragmatism and gimmicks. Pagan-friendly "churches" are indeed friendly to the God-haters, but certainly not to God and His Truth.

To borrow from a song: they turn their eyes upon the world, look full into its fleshly ways, and with the things of the world, HIS face grows strangely dim, in the light of the popularity race.

Just think what true Christians could do with $130 million dollars with real mission work. This isn't a need, as I've talked about recently. This is coveting while slapping the holy name of Jesus onto it, justfying their sin. And yeah, I just called it sin, because that IS what it is. Its a love of the world and taking the money of the sheep to look impressive. Its of the flesh and pride, NOT of Christ Jesus nor humility. What was it that Peter said? Silver or gold have I none, but what I do, I give to you....then he proclaimed the paralytic to get up and walk. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe (Rom. 1:16). The real power is in the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit....the third Person in the Triune Godhead that most "Christians" ignore.

1Jn 2:15 Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him, 16 because all that which is in the world: the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

A Call For Separation In Spiritual Endevors

John MacArthur on 2Cor. 6:14

Excerpts:

Probably this is the most familiar portion of Scripture found in 2 Corinthians. The statement that begins verse 14 may be one of the most oft quoted portions of this marvelous epistle. It says, "Do not be bound together, or unequally yoked with unbelievers." And that is the principle which is so foundational, so much a cornerstone of Christian living that we have to give our attention to it very, very carefully.

Now just at first reading it is clear from this passage that the Apostle Paul identifies two opposing worlds, two opposing realms or spheres or kingdoms or dimensions of life. One is described and characterized by righteousness, light, Christ, believers and the presence of God. The other is characterized, or described as lawless, dark, satanic, occupied by unbelievers and the presence of idols. Two societies, two realms, two spheres utterly different, utterly distinct, completely incongruous and incompatible. And the Apostle says there is no possibility for people in these two kingdoms to be bound together in common work, no partnership, no fellowship, no harmony, no commonality and no agreement does or can really exist.

Years ago there was a ballad titled, "Two Different Worlds," and the first line simply said, "We live in two different worlds." And that is precisely the case here. Two different worlds that have utterly nothing in common. No one really lives in both. Some people try unsuccessfully but they are two distinct. One is old, the other is new. One is earthly, the other is heavenly. One is deadly, the other is life giving. One is material, the other is spiritual. One is filled with lies, the other is all truth. One relates to the unclean and the other to the pure. And Paul's message in this text is intended to make it very clear to all Christians that there is no possibility of living in both or shuttling back and forth.

Now what does that mean? What are the implications of that? Well first of all, the term "bound together" is usually translated "unequally yoked" because it comes from a Greek term that can have that implication. In fact, the Greek term, the Greek verb that is sometimes translated "unequally yoked," heterozugeo, can be used of yoking up in a common effort. Paul draws this analogy, however, not from the usage of the Greek term but from a concept back in Deuteronomy 22:10...is that they were not to plow with an ox and an ass yoked together. And the reasons for that are obvious. Those two animals have two different natures. They don't have the same gait, they don't have the same disposition, they don't have the same strength. They don't have the same kind of instincts, completely different natures. You can't yoke them up and expect a straight furrow. And Paul is borrowing off of that analogy and using a Greek term that was used in that same kind of way, speaking of unequal yokes or equal yokes. In fact, in Paul's time that very verb was used to refer to teachers linked up in a common religion or common philosophy or a common school who did not agree and they were said to be unequally yoked.

Listen, Satan's number one assault on the church is to infiltrate with error. To get in the church and teach lies, error, bad theology, to bring in syncretistic subtleties, to bring in stuff that sounds good on the surface but it is doctrine of demons. That's how he operates. And he had done it in Corinth and Paul says you can't do that, it is disastrous.

What we're talking about here is any linking together with an unbeliever in any religious or spiritual enterprise. That's what we're talking about. We're not talking about mutual funds, you can rest easy. We're not talking about you should quit your job cause you work with non-believers. We're not talking about Christian pulling out of the school because he doesn't have a Christian teacher. We're not talking about leaving your neighborhood. We're not talking about any of that. We're talking about a spiritual enterprise, worship, ministry, evangelism.

Religious cooperation between the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of light is ridiculous. Why would we want to give Satan access? You say, "Is this...is this a problem?" Is this a problem? This is Satan's number one ploy.

We still have that today. Satan still endeavors to encroach. Recently we had the Promise Keepers event in Los Angeles. And right around the time of the Promise Keepers I picked up the Los Angeles Times and found that the Cardinal--the Catholic Cardinal, had affirmed everything about the Promise Keepers and encouraged all the parish priests to take all their men. That was followed in an article, I think a day later, by the local Mormon bishop who said that he was encouraging all the Mormons to go. What does that say about Promise Keepers? Nothing. What it says about Satan is everything. That's always been his approach. He doesn't want to fight it, he wants to...what?...he wants to join it. When he fights the church it explodes and the blood of the martyrs becomes the seat of the church. When he joins the church it dies. And he always wants to get involved in it. And witless, reckless, undiscerning believers think that's an evangelistic strategy and embrace it.

So there's no place for compromise. Obviously you don't want to marry someone who is not a Christian. First Corinthians 7:39 says, "Marry only in the Lord," but that is not the issue of 2 Corinthians 6. But I'll tell you, for a Christian it has implications in all the relationships that you build because you cannot build lasting strong deep relationships with spiritual purpose with anybody other than a believer. And so, with that commitment to the integrity and the purity of the church, we have some clarity and some power and some purity that can have an impact on the unsaved world. And we keep Satan away. That's what Paul is calling for.

What folly. It's not an evangelistic strategy, it's slow suicide. Unbelievers and believers cannot be yoked in common spiritual enterprise. Truth and error cannot go together. They are opposite in nature, they are pulling in opposite directions, they are headed toward opposite goals, they are motivated by opposite desires, and they're controlled by enemy leaders. We have to separate from non-Christians in every...every activity that has anything to do with the advancement of the gospel...they can have no part...no part at all. They can be on the receiving end, that's it.

The heathen who do not know Christ, who do not have a genuine place in the Kingdom of God cannot join the enterprise of the church. A lot of them are completely pagan on the outside. The ones you have to watch for are the most religious, and watch this one, the most subtly like Christians. Satan is wily, covert, subtle and crafty.

And it's not popular again to take this particular viewpoint but it's fairly safe because it's in the Bible. And I feel real comfortable there. And I hope you do as well. And in the end all of this spiritual ministry, integrity is for the sake of the purity of the church, the power of the church, the clarity of the truth of the church to ultimately reach the lost who are duped by Satan in these false systems. Any embracing of them at all sends the message that the people who belong to them are okay. What kind of damning heresy that is.

Communist Sympathizer Anita Dunn Steps Down And Reveals Control of News by White House

Excerpts from WND report on Anita Dunn ,White House communications director who is stepping down, but will remain active:

Quote:

Dunn had been leading a campaign against Fox News Channel, slamming the top-rated network as an "arm of the Republican Party" and "opinion" journalism masquerading as news."

Last month, WND posted a video of Dunn in which she disclosed to the Dominican government that President Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was "controlled."

[Wait, she "had been leading a campaign against Fox News Channel, slamming the top-rated network as an "arm of the Republican Party" and "opinion" journalism masquerading as news." ]

Fox hit back, releasing a video of Dunn speaking to high school students last June in which she lists her two "favorite political philosophers," including Communist Chinese leader Mao Zedong, whose draconian policies are blamed for the deaths of tens of millions of people.

"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," said Dunn to the audience.

[This is from the woman who called Fox News"arm of the Republican Party" and "opinion" journalism masquerading as news." ]

"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters," said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama's chief campaign manager.

"We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it," Dunn said.

[Oh let us recall again, she called Fox News the "arm of the Republican Party" and "opinion" journalism masquerading as news." ]

End quote.

So while Dunn called Fox News Channel as opinion journalism and an arm of the GOP, in REALITY SHE and Obama's camp were the ones ACTUALLY CONTROLLING THE MEDIA. She was doing EXACTLY what she accussed Fox News of doing...and worse. She was behaving in a communist way. Historically, the press has acted as a check and balance to the government as a watchdog, even in Britain. Now it is merely the puppet of the current White House puppeteers. When the day the government dictates what is news and controlls the news, that's the day when Communism has seeped it.

That day is here.

20th Anniversary Of The Berlin Wall

Today is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. As newlyweds, my husband and I witnessed this on t.v. and it was amazing.

At the left is a photo of three historical figures: former Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, German Chanellor Angela Merkel, and former Polish President Lech Walesa. Amazing. On the right, the piece of the Berlin Wall I bought at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

See the amazing photos of the history of the Berlin Wall from just before it was built, to its destruction. Many people died trying to escape East Berlin.

Listen to President Reagn's speech where he challenged Soviet President Gorbachev to "open this gate! Mr. Gorbavhev,tear down this wall!" In no monotone, mechanical voice, but passionate pleading, he demanded actions that met one's speech. He had nerve to be in front of Communist East Berlin and demand the destruction of the wall and system that brought tyranny, death, and enslaved millions to a black and white, bleek and empty way of life.

Have we forgotten? Do we think Communism is dead?

Ricky Warren and Reader's Digest No Longer Partners In Theological Crime

Quote:

Less than a year after its launch, the quarterly magazine will release its last print issue in mid-November before going to an all-digital format. Issues in 2010 will be posted online, free of charge on www.purposedriven.com. The content will be operated solely by Warren’s Saddleback Church in Southern California.

“Our biggest discovery was learning that people prefer reading our content online rather than in print because it is more convenient and accessible,” said Warren, who noted the online format will make the content available to a wider international audience that could not afford the subscription fee.

End quote.

~Source

That's PR code for "We couldn't sell enough garbage PDL magazines."

"How To Study The Bible" by John MacArthur

Someone recently made the comment that most "Christians" don't know how to study the Bible. I believe this is true. Moreover, most don't care, which is even more serious. For those who want to learn how to study Scripture, I'd like to point you to a little book that might help you do this.

From possibly the best expository pastor-teacher of our time, "How To Study The Bible" by John MacArthur. Not only does he talk about how to study it, but WHY its so important to study God's Word. Its available at www.amazon.com for $7.99.