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 →