Monthly Archives: October 2015

Mother Teresa – The Myth

Posted on by
Reply

Mother TeresaTim Challies, back in 2003 wrote this article:

Mother Teresa (known also as Mother Teresa of Calcutta) was born in what is now called Yugoslavia/Bosnia in 1910. Born to Albanian parents she was at that time known as Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu. The labor for which she became renowned began on January 6, 1929 when she arrived in Calcutta, India to work with the poor and needy. When she died in September of 1997 she was the director of a worldwide missions organization known as the “Missionaries of Charity.” There are currently over 500 missions in more than 100 countries around the world. She was the recipient of numerous awards including the most prestigious of all awards, the Nobel Peace Prize. She was revered around the world as an example of Christian love and charity and as someone who dedicated her life to the noble cause of advancing the gospel to the poor and needy of the world while caring for their physical needs. Her legacy will doubtless be as one of history’s great humanitarians.

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. In a speech she delivered to the Worldwide Retreat For Priests in October of 1984 she made the following quotes:

a) “At the word of a priest, that little piece of bread becomes the body of Christ, the Bread of Life.”

b) “Without a priest, without Jesus going with them, our sisters couldn’t go anywhere.”

c) “When the priest is there, then can we have our altar and our tabernacle and our Jesus. Only the priests put Jesus there for us. … Jesus wants to go there, but we cannot bring him unless you first give him to us. This is why I love priests so much. We could never be what we are and do the things we do without you priests who first bring Jesus to us.”

d) “Mary … is our patroness and our Mother, and she is always leading us to Jesus.”

In just these four quotes 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.

While she worked with the poor, Mother Teresa was adamant that any type of evangelism was unnecessary. In her book, Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations and Prayers, she says:
“We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] 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. 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.” (Pages 81-82) Continue reading →

Sandemanianism

Posted on by
Reply

Sandemanianism refers primarily to an aspect of theology regarding the nature of faith promoted by Robert Sandeman (1718-1781), from which it derives its name, and his father-in-law John Glas (1695-1773) in Scotland and England during the mid 18th century.

To the Sandemanians, the nature of saving faith reduces to mere intellectual assent to a fact or proposition. This is illustrated rather clearly in the following quote. “In a series of letters to James Hervey, the author of Theron and Aspasia, he [Sandeman] maintained that justifying faith is a simple assent to the divine testimony concerning Jesus Christ, differing in no way in its character from belief in any ordinary testimony.”^[1]^

Those who hold to the concept of Lordship salvation argue that the view espoused by proponents of Non-Lordship salvation is essentially the errant view of the 18th century Sandemanians.

Notes
? Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition (1911), now in the public domain; s.v. Glasites, or Sandemanians, bracket added.

Source: http://www.theopedia.com/sandemanianism

Tom Ascol in an article entitled Old Error Rediscovered writes:

Recently, when surveying the scene of contemporary American Christianity, one of evangelicalism’s foremost theologians made the following confession:

If, ten years ago, you had told me that I would live to see literate evangelicals, some with doctorates and a seminary teaching record, arguing for the reality of an eternal salvation, divinely guaranteed, that may have in it no repentance, no discipleship, no behavioral change, no practical acknowledgment of Christ as Lord of one’s life, and no perseverance in faith, then I would have told you that you were out of your mind. Stark, staring, bonkers, is the British phrase I would probably have used.[1]

What J. I. Packer found unthinkable ten years ago, has become a tragic, pervasive reality within American evangelicalism today. Through the influence of erudite theologians and eloquent preachers the view that one may own Jesus as Savior and not own him as Lord has gained wide currency in conservative, evangelical churches. Challenges to this perversion of the gospel have given rise to the modern “Lordship Debate.”

Basically, the debate may be framed by the following questions: Must Jesus be Lord of one’s life in order to be Savior of one’s life? Is it possible to believe savingly in Christ without submitting to his Lordship? Are receiving Christ as Savior and receiving Christ as Lord two separable experiences in the life of the believer? How you answer these questions reveals on which side of the debate you stand.

The issue is an important one. Nothing less than the gospel itself is at stake. If the “non-Lordship” proponents are right, then the “other side” is guilty of adding to the gospel of salvation by grace through faith. If advocates of the “Lordship” position are correct, then those who oppose it are guilty of cheapening grace and reducing faith to little more than a mental exercise. Continue reading →

The Eternal Decrees of God

Posted on by
Reply

Mike Riccardi is the Pastor of Local Outreach Ministries at Grace Community Church in Los Angeles. He also teaches Evangelism at The Master’s Seminary. In an article entitled “I Will Surely Tell of the Decree of the Lord” he writes:

In numerous passages throughout the Bible, there are places where Scripture speaks of God’s “purpose” (Acts 4:28), His “counsel” (Eph 1:11), “good pleasure” (Isa 46:10), or “will” (Eph 1:5). In one way or another, each of these designations refer to what theologians call God’s decree. The Westminster Confession famously characterizes describes God’s decree as follows: “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.”

So in those instances where Scripture speaks of God’s purpose, plan, counsel, pleasure, or will, these passages are referring to the divine decree by which God, before the creation of time, determined to bring about all things that were to happen in time. John Piper, summarizing God’s decree, says, “He has designed from all eternity, and is infallibly forming, with every event, a magnificent mosaic of redemptive history” (Desiring God, 40). This helpful summary presents three characteristics of God’s decree that succinctly encapsulate the teaching of Scripture: God’s decree is eternal, immutable, and exhaustive.

God’s Decree is Eternal and Unconditional

First, Scripture presents God’s decree as having been determined before the creation of time, and thus it is said to be eternal.

David praises God because all his days were ordained and written in God’s book before any one of them came to pass (Ps 139:16).

God’s election of individuals to salvation is said to have occurred “before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4); cf. Matt 25:34); 1 Tim 1:9). Continue reading →

Are the Quran/Bible Books of Peace? (Debates)

Posted on by
Reply

Debate: Is the Quran a Book of Peace? Shabir Ally (Muslim) vs. David Wood (Christian)

Is the Quran a book of peace? Is Islam a religion of peace? Did Muhammad preach a message of peace and tolerance? In this debate, Shabir Ally (Muslim) and David Wood (Christian) scrutinize a variety of Quran verses to determine whether the Islam commands Muslims to live in peace with unbelievers.

Is the Bible a book of peace? Christians point to Jesus’ commands to “Love your neighbor as yourself” and “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” to prove that Christianity is a religion of peace. However, the Bible also contains reports of Joshua invading the land of Canaan, Saul fighting the Amalekites, etc. So what’s the Biblical position on peace and violence? In this debate, David Wood and Shabir Ally go through the text to get to the truth.

Clearer Than Saying “Calvinist”

Posted on by
Reply

john-piperDr. John Piper in an article entitled “Saying What You Believe Is Clearer Than Saying “Calvinist”” writes:

We are Christians. Radical, Bible-saturated, Christ-exalting, God-centered, mission-advancing, soul-winning, church-loving, holiness-pursing, sovereignty-savoring, grace-besotted, broken-hearted, happy followers of the omnipotent, crucified Christ. At least that’s our imperfect commitment.

In other words, we are Calvinists. But that label is not nearly as useful as telling people what you actually believe! So forget the label, if it helps, and tell them clearly, without evasion or ambiguity, what you believe about salvation.

If they say, “Are you a Calvinist?” say, “You decide. Here is what I believe . . .”

I believe I am so spiritually corrupt and prideful and rebellious that I would never have come to faith in Jesus without God’s merciful, sovereign victory over the last vestiges of my rebellion. (1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:1–4; Romans 8:7).

I believe that God chose me to be his child before the foundation of the world, on the basis of nothing in me, foreknown or otherwise. (Ephesians 1:4–6; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:29–30; 11:5–7)

I believe Christ died as a substitute for sinners to provide a bona fide offer of salvation to all people, and that he had an invincible design in his death to obtain his chosen bride, namely, the assembly of all believers, whose names were eternally written in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain. (John 3:16; John 10:15; Ephesians 5:25; Revelation 13:8)

When I was dead in my trespasses, and blind to the beauty of Christ, God made me alive, opened the eyes of my heart, granted me to believe, and united me to Jesus, with all the benefits of forgiveness and justification and eternal life. (Ephesians 2:4–5; 2 Corinthians 4:6; Philippians 2:29; Ephesians 2:8–9; Acts 16:14; Ephesians 1:7; Philippians 3:9)

I am eternally secure not mainly because of anything I did in the past, but decisively because God is faithful to complete the work he began—to sustain my faith, and to keep me from apostasy, and to hold me back from sin that leads to death. (1 Corinthians 1:8–9; 1 Thessalonians 5:23–24; Philippians 1:6; 1 Peter 1:5; Jude 1:25; John 10:28–29; 1 John 5:16)
Call it what you will, this is my life. I believe it because I see it in the Bible. And because I have experienced it. Everlasting praise to the greatness of the glory of the grace of God!

Under Authority?

Posted on by
Reply

6 “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” 7 And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8 But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. 11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.

The centurion’s words reveal much concerning his view of authority.

1. He recognized Jesus had authority. That is very clear. The centurion knew that Jesus did not even need to come to his home to heal his paralyzed servant. Travel was unnecessary. All Jesus needed to do was speak a work – to give a command.

2. He recognized that Jesus’ authority, like his own, was delegated authority.

In ancient Rome, to disobey the centurion’s authority would have FAR reaching consequences. Rome stood behind the centurion. The centurion wore the uniform of Rome, having obtained Rome’s endorsement and backing. To disobey him would mean disobedience to Rome. To take on the authority of the centurion would have meant taking on all the power of the Emperor himself. The consequence of disobedience could be death. Continue reading →

J. I . Packer – Why Annihilationism is Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

Matthew 8:12, Matthew 22:13, and Matthew 25:30 show that darkness signifies a state of deprivation and distress, not of destruction in the sense of ceasing to exist. After all, only those who exist can weep and gnash their teeth, as those banished into the darkness are said to do… at every point, the linguistic argument simply fails. To say that some texts, taken in isolation, might mean annihilation proves nothing when other texts evidently do not.”

Gavin Ortlund (quoting J. I. Packer) at the Gospel Coalition writes:

The doctrine of hell is the most difficult aspect of the Christian faith for many people. It is for me. I feel acutely the unremitting sadness of this doctrine. But to be a Christian is—at the very least—to confess Christ the Son of God, and to confess Christ the Son of God is—at the very least—to submit to his teaching. And this includes his teaching on hell (which was quite copious and colorful).

Saint Anselm once said we should give thanks for whatever of the Christian faith we can understand with our minds; but when we come to something we don’t understand, we should “bow our heads in reverent submission.” That seems like godly and wise advice to me. We simply don’t have the option to pick and choose from what the Bible teaches: we are called to submit to its authority over us.

The traditional doctrine of hell is currently undergoing significant challenges from both within and without the church. Many question the reality of hell outright, while many others opt toward annihiliationism—the belief that the damned won’t suffer eternally but will instead have their consciousness extinguished at some point. In 1997 J. I. Packer wrote a brief article in Reformation and Revival magazine reviewing the debate over annihilationism among evangelicals. In his historical summary, he defines annihilationism as follows:

What is at issue? The question is essentially exegetical, though with theological and pastoral implications. It boils down to whether, when Jesus said that those banished at the final judgment will “go away into eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:46), he envisaged a state of penal pain that is endless, or an ending of conscious existence that is irrevocable: that is (for this is how the question is put), a punishment that is eternal in its length or in its effect.

Continue reading →

Two Motivations for Pursuing Holiness

Posted on by
Reply

we must remember from what we have been ransomed. The Bible says we have been ransomed “from the futile ways inherited from [our] forefathers” (1 Peter 1:18). Life apart from a right relationship with God is futile. “Vanity of vanities, ” the Bible calls it (Eccl. 1:2). No matter how religious, lavish, or popular your life before Christ was, it was empty. How empty? The Apostle Paul called it skubalon (“rubbish, dung, sewage”):

For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ. (Phil. 3:3–8)

According to Paul, his life prior to Christ would have been the envy of most in his world. He had everything anyone in his world could have wanted, and most of it was inherited from his forefathers. He had social status, religious status, educational status, financial status, and moral status. He was a pillar in his society, considered righteous and blameless. Yet, upon the revelation of Jesus Christ in his life, when Jesus ransomed him, Paul came to see all these things as loss, worthless, or even refuse and rubbish. In comparison to knowing Christ, these cultural, ethnic, and social riches were worthless. They belonged to the world of waste and deserved to be disregarded and disdained as such. While his society would have counted his status worthy of envy, Paul said it was futile, a vanity of vanities. Paul was ransomed from such vain pursuits, and so are all who have been cleansed by the blood of Christ.

In Philippians 3:3–8 and 1 Peter 1:18, we see Paul and Peter saying the same thing. In Christ, we are ransomed from that futile, vain living that was ours from birth and that had been accumulating ever since. The idea of futility or worthlessness was particularly significant and poignant in Peter’s world, because he was writing to people who, in most cases, like Paul, were the first Christians in their families. Undoubtedly, many came from strongly traditional Jewish homes. Yet, Peter said many of the rituals their parents had handed down to them were empty and worthless, leading to bondage and away from God. But God, through the blood of Christ, had delivered them. Likewise, He has delivered us from futile things. The greatness of this deliverance should not be forgotten. We could not know the futility of our lives until we were made to see the utility of Christ.

Second, we must remember that with which we have been ransomed. Peter says that we have been ransomed not with perishable things but with the precious blood of Christ (1 Peter 1:19). Someone has said that salvation is free. Yes, it is free in that it does not cost silver, gold, dollars, or cents. But that does not mean that it does not cost anything. In fact, it cost Christ everything. Salvation is free to you and me because someone else paid the price:

Jesus paid it all,
All to Him I owe;
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow.

It’s one thing to ransom someone from slavery in this world. Many have performed this gracious act, and we thank God for it. But how do we ransom people from slavery to sin? How much do we pay to ransom them from death and hell? For such a transaction, silver and gold are of no value. There is an economy wherein the only currency is the blood of Christ. It is God’s economy. It is the economy of the kingdom of God. It is the economy of the redeemed. To redeem us, Christ did not reach into the treasure bag; He reached into Himself—the treasure of all treasures—and set us free.