64 Sermon Illustrations on Heresy

Comedian Emo Philips tells this story:

In conversation with a person I had recently met, I asked, "Are you Protestant or Catholic?"

My new acquaintance replied, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! What franchise?"

He answered, "Baptist."

"Me to!" I said. "Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"

"Northern Baptist," he replied.

"Me too!" I shouted.

We continued to go back and forth. Finally I asked, "Northern conservative fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, Council of 1879 or Northern conservative fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, Council of 1912?"

He replied, "Northern conservative fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, Council of 1912."

I said, "Die, heretic!"

----------------

Another version:

----------------

Once I was in San Francisco, walking across the Golden Gate Bridge, when I saw this guy on the bridge about to jump. I thought I'd try to stall him, detain him, long enough for me to put the film in. I said, "Don't jump."

He turned his head. You've heard of the Elephant Man? He had a head like the head of a horse. My heart went out to him. I said, "Why the long face?"

He said, "All my life people have called me mean names, cruel names like 'Flicka' . . . "Chess Piece' . . . 'Trigger". . . 'Silver' . . .'"

I said, "Don't worry about it, Ed."

He said, "Nobody loves me."

I said, "God loves you."

"How do you know there's a God?"

I said, "Of course there's a God. Do you think that billions of years ago, a bunch of molecules floating around at random without rhyme or reason could someday have had the sense of humor to make you look like that?"

He said, "I guess you're right." And a tear came to his eye.

I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu or what?"

He said, "A Christian."

I said, "Small world! Me too. Protestant or Catholic or Greek Orthodox?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! What franchise?"

He said, "Baptist."

I said, "Me too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Baptist."

I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."

I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist or Northern Conservative Reformed Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist."

I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region."

I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."

I screamed, "DIE HERETIC!" And I pushed him over.

__________________

Source: Routine by comedian Emo Philips, transcribed from video

- Michael J. Hostetler, Illustrating the Sermon, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1989, pages 78-80.

In reply to an inquiry made to Martin Luther in 1528, he wrote,

“You ask whether the magistrate may kill false prophets. I am slow in a judgment of blood even when it is deserved. In this matter I am terrified by the example of the papists and the Jews before Christ, for when there was a statute for the killing of false prophets and heretics, in time it came about that only the most saintly and innocent were killed. ... I cannot admit that false teachers are to be put to death. It is enough to banish.”

Buchanan shows how the Episcopal church is slipping and attributes it to heretical bishops like Spong of Newark. Spong ordained the first openly homosexual priest (who now admits to having AIDS) and lately has said Paul himself must have been a repressed homosexual. His error makes it even harder for Episcopalians to cooperate with orthodox Catholics.

"Once again, the long pilgrimage of a mainstream Christian cleric, to make his faith 'relevant' to a secular age, has ended in total irrelevance and secular ridicule."

Traditional Christian beliefs are in decline, according to a recent survey by the Barna Research Group of Glendale, California. While 88% believe Jesus Christ was a real person, what they believe about Him differs sharply from Scriptural teaching.

Forty-two percent of those surveyed believe that while He lived on earth, Jesus committed sins, just like other people. Even among born-again Christians, one-quarter believe Jesus sinned during His time on earth.

A whopping 61% believe the devil is just a symbol of evil, not a living being. And 54% believe that if people are good enough, they will earn a place in heaven, regardless of their religious beliefs.

================

Another version from SermonCentral.com, 2002:

NOT JUST A SYMBOL

The New York Times reported a study about the diminishing belief in the devil among Americans. Two-thirds of Americans do not believe in the devil as a living entity. In a randomly selected survey of over 1,000 Americans, pollsters asked whether they agreed that Satan is “not a living being, but a symbol of evil.” Sixty-two percent agreed with the statement. That means nearly 149 million Americans believe that Satan has no influence, but that Satan is just a symbol of evil. We should know and understand that Satan is real, and evil is real, and this is our number-one enemy as believers in Jesus Christ.

________

Contributed by Christopher Roberts

The role of divine revealer denied to Jesus at Re-Imagining was filled by Sophia. “Bless Sophia, dream the vision, share the wisdom, dwelling deep within” echoed some two-dozen times through Re-Imagining like the Gloria Patri in a Benedictine monastery. There are, to be sure, passages in the Old Testament that personify sophia (Greek for wisdom), and on occasion speak of her as an attribute of divine activity (see “In the name of Sophia,” p. 43). At Re-Imagining, however, no speaker addressed the role of sophia within the biblical or theological tradition, and particularly the Eastern Orthodox tradition where it has played a significant role. Sophia, rather, was presented in unspecified relationship to the Christian tradition, independent and even alien to it.

Ostensibly, Sophia was intended to represent a feminine expression of the Holy Spirit, but in reality, Sophia was the elevation of an attribute of God (wisdom) to the place of God. The practical result was that Sophia became a subjective metaphor for the political, social, gender, sexual, or ecological preferences of various speakers. We have noted the shift in theological authority at Re-Imagining from transcendence to immanence. That is, theology was severed from its traditional moorings in the transcendence of God, the person and work of Christ, the institution of the church, and the Holy Scriptures, and rooted to human experience alone-a tendency, incidentally, increasingly characteristic of many modern theologies. Any distinction between the “Spirit” and human experience was effectively eliminated, thus positing ultimate authority in human experience, which, at Re-Imagining, meant feminine experience.

The endeavor to shift theology from dogmatic to experiential categories verged on spiritual narcissism. “I reverence the Presence within you,” began an opening liturgy, after which participants were instructed, “Whisper the sacred word that is your name.” Several speakers alluded to the divine within them. Aruna Gnanadason of the Church of South India wore a red dot on her forehead as a symbol of the divine in her. Chung Hyun Kyung of Korea spoke of spirituality as an archaeological excavation of the layers of God within her. Barbara Lundblad took the messianic prophecy of Isaiah 61, which Jesus applied uniquely to himself in Luke 4, and applied it to herself: “The Spirit has anointed me. I need to know that this word is spoken to me in the spirit of Sophia. Trust the stirring in your womb.”

The problem with locating theological authority in human experience is that human experience varies, making an objective standard impossible. In the name of Jesus Christ, the Ku Klux Klan, “German Christians” under Hitler, and the death-to-abortionists faction have advocated things that Christians - including Christians at Re-Imagining - abhor. The authority of human experience leads to the oldest and most violent ethic in the world: might makes right.

The equating of the Spirit with human experience at Re-Imagining resulted in elevating “the evil of patriarchy” to mythic proportions. Never defined, “patriarchy” fulfilled the stereotype of Re-Imagining that “subhuman” fulfills for the Fascist and “capitalism” for the Communist. In a story narrated by Aruna Gnanadason, patriarchy replaced sin as the source of all evil in the world. Man seized the demon of patriarchy to brutalize the creation, including woman, his innocent victim. The church, with its “brain- damaging theology,” sanctions the present state of oppression. There is only one thing patriarchy cannot stamp out, however. That is the feminine spirit, compassionate and regenerating, which will ultimately prevail.

Gnanadason’s mythic archetype might have been dismissed as a theological melodrama were it not echoed in Dirty Harry-epithets from speaker after speaker. One was left blinking in incredulity at such a simplistic-and self- righteous-world-view. But the show went on. Most of the fallout from the blast on patriarchy landed in the lap of the church. A male-dominated clearing house of power over women, the church became the object of all sorts of drive-by shootings from speakers. The upshot was that the institutional church was effectively eliminated as a viable community of faith. Virginia Mollenkott made it explicit when she advised that “it may be necessary for the substantial liberated minority in every denomination to leave the denomination in order to form the holistic church.”

Re-Imagining’s theology of immanence came to most explicit elaboration in sexual imagery. Susan Thistlethwaite declared, “Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism.” The motif pervaded Re-Imagining at every level. It was most apparent in the default apology for lesbianism, homosexuality, transgenderism, and bisexuality that characterized Re-Imagining. Not a few speakers identified themselves as lesbian. Decrying “the unspeakable treatment of lesbian and bisexual women in mainline churches,” Mary Hunt, Roman Catholic feminist of the Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (water) in Silver Spring (Md.), stated, “To be an out lesbian in Christian church circles is to live threatened with spiritual if not physical death.” Quoting Mollenkott that “grace is a lesbian,” Hunt urged breaking with “preoccupation with eternal truth ...and the excess baggage of patriarchy.” “People doing justice [for homosexual rights] ...is what it means to me to be religious. Whether it is Christian or not is frankly, darling, something about which I no longer give a pope.”

An appeal for consensual sexual acts followed in consort with the affirmation of lesbianism. “Imagine sex among friends as the norm,” continued Mary Hunt, “young people learning to make friends rather than to date. Imagine valuing genital sexual interaction in terms of whether or how it fosters friendship and pleasure.... Pleasure is our birthright.”

THE JUDGMENT OF HULDAH

Re-Imagining gave voice to the pain and alienation that many women experience in the church. Christians, especially those who affirm Galatians 3:28, for example, should hear such pain with a renewed commitment to the equality of women as coheirs of salvation and as complementary partners in the church. But Re-Imagining was not the way to go about it, as has been recognized from many quarters. Re-Imagining’s radical revisionism with respect to the way theology is done, the nature of God, the significance of the Incarnation, and the person of the Holy Spirit poses a theological danger that the church cannot ignore if it is to remain the church.

The steering committee and various denominational leaders have labeled critics of Re-Imagining as divisive and factious. A post-conference communiqué warned that “Unofficial conservative publications within ...denominations have attacked the conference as heretical and pagan.” The attempt to deflect responsibility with words like unofficial and conservative is a lame ad hominem. That is like accusing doctors of jeopardizing health for attacking illness, or the police of disrupting communities because they prosecute crime. What other word besides heresy is appropriate where the Incarnation and Trinity were dismissed, where orthodoxy was derided, where Scripture was repeatedly contradicted, and where a goddess named Sophia was actively promoted? It is not those who name heresy who divide the church, but those who practice it!

In conclusion, 2 Kings 22 preserves a judgment that is of significance for Re-Imagining. During King Josiah’s reign, repairs were undertaken on the temple. “The book of the Law” (Deuteronomy) was discovered and read before the king, who directed the prophetess Huldah to be consulted, “for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us.” Huldah’s interpretation did nothing to allay the king. “Behold, I will bring evil upon this place and its inhabitants,” said the prophetess. Johanna Bos interpreted Huldah’s prophecy as a condemnation of male domination of the temple, fulminating, “This old house of patriarchy has got to come down.”

That is a decidedly idiosyncratic interpretation. Huldah’s prophecy is not about male domination or patriarchy. It is about apostasy and idolatry, the very things that characterized Re-Imagining. “Because they have forsaken me and have burned incense to other gods, ...therefore my wrath will be kindled against this place” (2 Kings 22:17).

________

James R. Edwards is professor of religion at Jamestown College, Jamestown, North Dakota.

Copyright (c) 1994 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine

Bruce, F. F., "When Is A Gospel Not A Gospel?"

Bulletin Of The John Rylands Library, March, 1963 [Review]

-------------------------------------------------

The essential element which distinguishes the noncanonical gospels from the

four canonical Gospels is the latter's supreme emphasis upon the passion of

Christ.

The major portion of the article is a discussion of what Paul meant in

Galatians 1:6-8 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 by his reference to a different or

another gospel. His summary statement is an excellent presentation of the New

Testament answers to the question "When is a Gospel not a Gospel?" or

positively, what is the true gospel? "To sum up, then, we may say that,

according to the general consensus of New Testament teaching, a gospel is not

a gospel when:

1. it is detached from the Jesus of history;

2. it gives little or no place to the passion;

3. it exalts human achievement in place of the grace of God;

4. it adds other conditions to the one which God has declared acceptable

(even if those additions be good and desirable in themselves); or

5. it treats righteousness and purity which the truly spiritual man has

outstripped.

On the other hand, a gospel is a gospel when:

1. it maintains contact with the Jesus of history, affirming that 'this

same Jesus' who came in the flesh and died is the vindicated and

exalted Lord;

2. it embraces and proclaims 'the stumbling block of the cross';

3. it extends the grace of God to men for their acceptance by faith;

4. it relies upon the power of the Spirit to make it effective in those

who hear it; and

5. it issues in a life of righteousness and purity which is sustained

and directed by the love of God."

Measured against this standard, much of critical scholarship would be found wanting, in the judgment of this reviewer.

*

The British media say the Scottish Episcopal bishop of Edinburgh has defended his outspoken views on atheism as an acceptable alternative to faith, drug taking, homosexuality and promiscuity and dismissed calls for his resignation.

In his book, Godless Morality, Bishop Holloway says promiscuity may not be immoral and that religion should not feature debates on ethics. He also calls for the legalization of cannabis and champions the cause of homosexuals. Two weeks ago he admitted to experimenting with marijuana and called for a Royal Commission to consider its decriminalization.

In a letter to all clergy in his diocese, the Most Rev. Richard Holloway said that he had responsibility to "encourage theological reflection upon the challenging issues of the day." Recently, a group of traditionalist priests within the Scottish Episcopal Church accused the bishop of contradicting Christian belief.

In response Holloway said in his letter: "I believe that I represent a considerable body of people who have left the Church. There is a Church in exile out there, consisting of good people who have left us because they can no longer believe the Church's doctrine or ethics as traditionally interpreted."

BEHAVIOR NOT HELPFUL

Holloway, 65, conducted a confirmation service August 29 in the Borders town of Duns where the rector, the Rev. Chris Martin, had questioned the bishop's suitability to remain in his post. Martin said, "His behavior is not helpful for those of us who are responsible for ministering the Gospel to our parishioners."

In 1998, Holloway said he could fill the Scottish Episcopal Church with "sexual refugees." He was criticized for failing to uphold the traditional line on homosexuality adopted by the Anglican Lambeth Conference with the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey.

In 1996, Holloway admitted that at times he does not believe in God and described atheism as a "truer faith than much that passes for belief." He admitted feelings of "absolute atheism" where he became convinced that there was no God and no afterlife. "Real atheism is as much an intuition as faith itself and is like it in many ways. It has some good arguments to support it," he said.

*

Galatians sermon series Galatians 1:1-10

SEEKING APPROVAL

================

I. You can't please everybody.

II. The context of Paul's letter to the Galatians.

III. Who Paul is.

A. An apostle. 1:1

B. Commissioned by God. "Message, not the man"

IV. What Jesus did.

A. Christ died for our sins.

B. Christ died to rescue us from this present age. 1:4

V. What the Galatians are doing.

A. They are "deserting" or being turncoats to Jesus. 1:6

B. Troublemakers had instigated turmoil. 1:7

C. Paul's curse. 1:8

VI. People-pleasing.

A. The approval of people is nice but immaterial.

B. What does GOD think of you?

Have you ever heard someone in your church dismissively say, “Theology isn’t for me” or “I don’t think theology is important; we just need to love Jesus and love people”? While I understand the sentiment behind these statements, as a pastor it grieves me.

Though many people in the church see theology as an abstract academic discipline with no bearing on the day-to-day Christian life, theology is inescapable. Simply put, every Christian is a theologian. Every Christian, by definition, knows God, thinks about God and makes statements about God. The very word “theology” means a word (logos) about God (theos).

Christian theology is simply talking about God in a distinctly Christian way based on the Scriptures. And if everyone is a theologian, the central question becomes: Is his or her theology distinctly Christian? Recent findings give cause for concern.

True theology points to God

LifeWay Research recently studied the theological knowledge of 3,000 adult Americans. The study focused on key theological areas of the faith and revealed several areas where many Americans differ from historic, orthodox Christianity.

Almost half (45 percent) believe there are many ways to get to heaven. The same percentage says the Bible was written for each person to interpret as he or she chooses. More than half (59 percent) of evangelicals believe the Holy Spirit is a force, not a person. And 29 percent of evangelicals believe God the Father is more divine than Jesus. Where are Americans, and especially evangelicals, getting their theology?

Human beings didn’t invent God, and because God exists independently from human experience, theology cannot originate from human thought or experience. Distinctly Christian theology -- what the apostle Paul called “sound doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:3) takes its starting point from the belief that God has revealed Himself in His authoritative Word, the Bible.

This is significant because the Bible stands as a testimony to the free and intentional act of self-disclosure on the part of a transcendent God. The task of theology has to do with knowing the true God and developing an integrated knowledge about Him in light of His self-disclosure.

A distinctly Christian theology is also focused on Christ. In John 5:39, Jesus says the Scriptures testify about Him. Christian doctrine is deeply personal and redemptive -- not an outline of abstract formulations or a morality code. The Bible is the unfolding story of God’s rescue and subsequent commissioning of His people through the person and work of Jesus Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit, to the glory of God.

Theology is practical

Theology is undertaken so our hearts might respond to God and that our lives might be conformed to His will. All of life’s central questions are deeply theological. Theology speaks to inquiries as wide-ranging as the meaning of life and as specific as particular events in life.

Our questions about the everyday ups and downs of guilt, joy, doubt, peace, suffering, justice and injustice all require a solid biblical and theological grounding to grasp them from a distinctly Christian perspective. And whether our theology is biblically sound or flawed, its implications will undoubtedly be felt because theology affects lives -- both ours and those around us.

Theology and the Christian life are not competing interests, but two sides of the same coin. This is why theology is so important to the local church. The church is a community of people on mission with God. And it’s a community where the passing on of the faith, or sound doctrine, is central to its purpose (Matthew 28:16-20; 2 Timothy 4:1-4).

Theological formation should be esteemed in the church because the church itself is a Gospel-formed theological community. The church is centered on God’s Word, and God’s Word is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). In other words, theology is eminently practical.

Theology also engages our emotions and shapes our living. It is not an exercise in head-scratching puzzles, but a discipline that should lead to heart-stirring emotions, which in turn leads to worshipful obedience in every area of life. It is by knowing God that we come to love Him, and by loving Him that we come to know Him.

This is why J. I. Packer has long said theology is for doxology and devotion -- that is, the praise of God and the practice of godliness. In other words, loving Jesus and loving people are made possible by a theological vision of God and the Christian life.

Theology fuels our devotion to God and our passion for sharing the Gospel. A solid theological vision of God and the Christian life is a powerful tool for mission.

Imagine if every Christian were a good theologian. Not just a good theologian, but a good theologian in the distinctively Christian sense. Theology matters for your church because theology is for everyone. Every Christian is a theologian.

________

Matt Capps is pastor of Fairview Baptist Church in Raleigh, North Carolina

Aren’t you offended? That is the question many evangelicals are being asked in the wake of a recent document released by the Vatican. The document declares that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church -- or, in words the Vatican would prefer to use, the only institutional form in which the Church of Christ subsists.

No, I am not offended. In the first place, I am not offended because this is not an issue in which emotion should play a key role. This is a theological question, and our response should be theological, not emotional. Secondly, I am not offended because I am not surprised. No one familiar with the statements of the Roman Catholic Magisterium should be surprised by this development. This is not news in any genuine sense. It is news only in the current context of Vatican statements and ecumenical relations. Thirdly, I am not offended because this new document actually brings attention to the crucial issues of ecclesiology, and thus it presents us with an opportunity.

The Vatican document is very brief -- just a few paragraphs in fact. It’s official title is “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church,” and it was released by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Defense of the Faith on June 29.Though many media sources have identified the document as a papal statement from Pope Benedict XVI, it is actually a statement from the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith that was later approved for release by the Pope (who, as Cardinal Ratzinger, headed this Congregation prior to assuming the papacy).

The document claims a unique legitimacy for the Roman Catholic Church as the church established by Christ. The document stakes this identity on a claim to apostolic succession, centered in the papacy itself. As the document states, “This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him.”

Lest anyone miss the point, the document then goes on to acknowledge that the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy also stake a claim to apostolic succession, and thus they are referred to as “Churches” by the Vatican. As for the churches born in whatever form out of the Reformation -- they are not true churches at all, only “ecclesial communities.”

Look at this:

“According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy

apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are,

therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church.

These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the

absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the

genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot,

according to Catholic doctrine, be called ‘Churches’ in the

proper sense.”

Pope Benedict was already in hot water with the media because of his recent decision related to the (limited) reinstitution of the Latin mass, complete with a call for the conversion of the Jews. He was not likely to be named “Ecumenist of the Year” anyway. This latest controversy just adds to the media impression of big changes at the Vatican under the current papacy.

There have been changes for sure. Benedict truly is a doctrinal theologian, whereas his popular predecessor, Pope John Paul II, was more a philosopher by academic training. Those familiar with the current Pope know of his frustration with the tendency of liberal Catholic theologians and laypersons to insist that the Second Vatican Council (known popularly as “Vatican II”) represented a massive shift (to the left) in Catholic doctrine. Not so, insisted Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith. Now, as Pope, Benedict is in a position to shape his argument into a universal policy for his church. Vatican II, he insists, represented only a deepening and reapplication of unchanging Catholic doctrine.

Evangelicals should appreciate the candor reflected in this document. There is no effort here to confuse the issues. To the contrary, the document is an obvious attempt to set the record straight. The Roman Catholic Church does not deny that Christ is working redemptively through Protestant and evangelical churches, but it does deny that these churches which deny the authority of the papacy are true churches in the most important sense. The true church, in other words, is that church identified through the recognition of the papacy. Those churches that deny or fail to recognize the papacy are “ecclesial Communities,” not churches “in the proper sense,” according to the document.

I appreciate the document’s clarity on this issue. It all comes down to this -- the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Pope as the universal monarch of the church is the defining issue. Roman Catholics and evangelicals should together recognize the importance of that claim. We should together realize and admit that this is an issue worthy of division. The Roman Catholic Church is willing to go so far as to assert that any church that denies the papacy is no true church. Evangelicals should be equally candid in asserting that any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church. This is not a theological game for children; it is the honest recognition of the importance of the question.

The Reformers and their heirs put their lives on the line in order to stake this claim. In this era of confusion and theological laxity we often forget that this was one of the defining issues of the Reformation itself. Both the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church staked their claim to be the true church -- and both revealed their most essential convictions in making their argument. As Martin Luther and John Calvin both made clear, the first mark of the true Church is the ministry of the Word -- the preaching of the Gospel. The Reformers indicted the Roman Catholic Church for failing to exhibit this mark, and thus failing to be a true church. The Catholic church returned the favor, defining the church in terms of the papacy and magisterial authority. Those claims have not changed.

I also appreciate the spiritual concern reflected in this document. The artificial and deadly dangerous game of ecumenical confusion has obscured issues of grave concern for our souls. I truly believe that Pope Benedict and the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith are concerned for our evangelical souls and our evangelical congregations. Pope Benedict is not playing a game. He is not asserting a claim to primacy on the playground. He, along with the Magisterium of his church, believes that Protestant churches are gravely defective and that our souls are in danger. His sacramental theology plays a large role in this concern, for he believes and teaches that a church without submission to the papacy has no guaranteed efficacy for its sacraments. (This point, by the way, explains why the Protestant churches that claim a sacramental theology are more concerned about this Vatican statement -- it denies the basic validity of their sacraments.)

I actually appreciate the Pope’s concern. If he is right, we are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Of course, I am convinced that he is not right -- not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right on the church.

The Roman Catholic Church believes we are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy. Evangelicals should be concerned that Catholics are in spiritual danger for their submission to these very claims. We both understand what is at stake.

The Rev. Mark Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, responded to the press by saying that the Vatican’s “exclusive claims” are “troubling.” He also said, “[W]hat may have been meant to clarify has caused pain.”

I will let Bishop Hanson explain his pain. I do not see this new Vatican statement as an innovation or an insult. I see it as a clarification and a helpful demarcation of the issues at stake.

I appreciate the Roman Catholic Church’s candor on this issue, and I believe that Evangelical Christians, with equal respect and clarity, should respond in kind. This is a time to be respectfully candid -- not a time to be offended.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #128]

After three days of heated debate, the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) voted Nov. 16 overwhelmingly to affirm what almost every Christian in the history of the church has always believed -- that God knows everything, including the future decisions of his creatures.

The organization, a professional society of biblical scholars and theologians who affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, brought the issue to the floor after a group of ETS charter members charged that the "openness of God" view being articulated by some society members is outside the boundaries of evangelical conviction.

The non-binding resolution stated that the society believes "the Bible clearly teaches that God has complete, accurate and infallible knowledge of all events past, present and future including all future decisions and actions of free moral agents." The resolution passed on a vote of 253 in favor to 66 opposed with 41 abstentions after a debate that lasted until well after midnight the night before.

The resolution takes issue with the concept of "open theism" held by evangelical scholars such as Clark Pinnock, Gregory Boyd and John Sanders. God cannot know what will happen in the future, these scholars argue, since future human decisions have not yet been made and thus do not exist to be known. Sanders, a professor of religion at Huntington College in Indiana, presented the open theist case before the society, arguing that an attempt to rule the idea out of bounds could result in an evangelical "Taliban," enforcing doctrinal orthodoxy within the society.

Sanders' view was opposed by a competing presentation by Bruce Ware, associate dean and professor of theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky. Ware pleaded with ETS members to recognize that the denial of God's complete knowledge is a dangerous doctrine that will damage the churches. Ware pointed to a host of Scriptures in which God declares himself to know the future, including passages in which God contrasts his knowledge of the future with the idols that have no such knowledge of future events.

"By its denying of God's foreknowledge of future free creaturely choices and actions, open theism is vulnerable to the charge of commending as God one whom the true God declares is false and worthless," Ware said.

The ramifications of open theism include the undermining of the gospel itself, Ware said, since God could not have kept with certainty the prophetic promises of the Old Testament, up to and including the crucifixion of Jesus. Nor, Ware said, can a God ignorant of the future guarantee the future success of his purposes. Ware took issue with statements by open theists who argue that God has made mistakes, including statements by Pinnock that even Jesus was mistaken at least once on a matter of predictive prophecy.

"The cost to doctrine and faith by open theism's denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge is too great to be accepted within evangelicalism," Ware said. "Thoughtful Christians, particularly Christian leaders, must speak out on the openness proposal to say what the glory of God, the truthfulness of Scripture and our own consciences require."

Before the debate on the resolution, Ware pleaded with open theists to repent of their teachings and reconsider the biblical portrayal of a God who knows the end from the beginning.

"You don't have to go this way!" Ware said. "I won't say, 'I told you so.' I will praise God! Come back to the fold."

The vote was preceded by one charter member, theologian Roger Nicole, arguing that the founders of the organization would have been horrified to know that the issue of God's knowledge would ever be up for debate among evangelicals, or that anyone who held such a view would even seek membership. Nicole argued that the society should vote to uphold foreknowledge, thereby signaling to open theists that they should "exercise their precious free will and resign." If the open theists refuse to voluntarily leave the organization, Nicole said, the ETS should then move to expel them through its constitutional process.

"Open theism is a cancer on the Evangelical Theological Society," Nicole said. "That cancer has not been resolved by chemotherapy or radiation. The only remaining option is surgery."

Ware and Nicole, a member of a Florida Baptist congregation, were joined by other Southern Baptists in opposing the open theist position. Charlie Draper, professor of New Testament at Southern Seminary's Boyce College, and Russ Bush, academic dean at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina, both argued that a denial of God's foreknowledge is a denial of the inerrancy of Scripture, since a God who cannot know the future cannot guarantee the truth of a Bible that speaks to future events. Draper said the debate might well be "the issue of the century" for American evangelicals.

"If this line cannot be drawn, no line can be drawn," Draper said. "If this view cannot be said to be a denial of inerrancy, then no view can be said to be a denial of inerrancy."

The resolution was opposed by Clark Pinnock, who as a faculty member at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in the 1960s, once championed a very conservative vision of historic Christian orthodoxy, but who has now significantly altered his convictions not only about the foreknowledge of God, but also about the meaning of inerrancy and the necessity of conscious faith in Christ for salvation. Pinnock argued that the ETS should not condemn open theism, but instead should recognize that "the best advice about a new religious movement" comes from the Pharisee Gamaliel in Acts 5:33-39. If open theism is not of God, it will come to nothing, Pinnock suggested.

The Southern Baptist Convention has addressed the question of open theism, first in a resolution offered by Southern Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. at the 1999 SBC annual meeting in Atlanta. The resolution passed by the convention affirmed that God knows all things, including the future. The SBC then addressed the issue in the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message statement of beliefs, revising the article on God to affirm that God's "perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures."

The ETS debate was preceded by a flurry of papers presented on both sides of the issue, and by an address by ETS President Darrell Bock, a New Testament scholar at Dallas Theological Seminary, who argued that sharp boundaries should not be drawn for the evangelical movement. Instead, he argued, evangelicalism may be likened to a "village green," which is defined more by the center than by the boundaries. After the vote, ETS program chair Millard Erickson, a longtime opponent of open theism, predicted that the resolution would not end the debate over these issues within American evangelicalism.

--30-

Spiritual confusion exists in churches today because many Christian ministers have watered down the truth of the gospel, R. Albert Mohler Jr. told graduates of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary May 18. The Southern Seminary challenged the grads to avoid such spiritual confusion by never straying from the gospel message.

"We can observe the spiritual confusion of modern America, and we know that what this culture has grown accustomed to hearing is anything but the clear and simple straightforward preaching of the gospel," Mohler said. "We see all around us a substitute spirituality in the place of authentic Christianity. Even in so many of our churches we see the doctrinal dumbing-down of American Christianity. Many persons have never rejected the truth because they have never heard it. They do not even know what it is."

Mohler said those embarking on a lifetime of Christian service would do well to follow the words of the apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 6:3-16. It is here that Paul warns Timothy to guard against false doctrine and to "fight the good fight of faith."

"The Christian minister does not volunteer for service," Mohler said. "The minister is drafted, called [and] chosen. The apostle Paul shared this repeatedly with his protege in ministry, Timothy. ... The minister of the gospel is not called to come up with something to say, but rather to preach the Word in season and out of season, and to hand down from generation to generation with a faithful succession of teaching that which was taught by the Lord Jesus Christ himself."

Quoting the fourth-century theologian Athanasius, Mohler said that every human soul is hungry for either virtue or vice, truth or lies. "The minister of the gospel must be especially careful to feed only the truth and never the lie," Mohler said.

The apostle Paul, Mohler said, was careful to avoid heretical teachers and those who did not speak with "sound words" or those who taught a "different doctrine." Mohler said Paul would "not make a good postmodernist."

"He does not demonstrate a relativistic understanding of truth, but instead the submission to the revealed truth of God," Mohler said. "The Christian ministry is not an individual franchise. We're not buying a license to preach, then trying to come up with a product that will sell. We're following in a succession of faithful teachers and we are accountable to the faith once for all delivered to the saints."

Mohler pointed out that many false doctrines arise when theologians attempt to speak where the Bible is silent.

"Sometimes a false teaching comes out of a morbid interest in controversial questions," he said. "The Word of God is not only infallible and inerrant, inspired and authoritative, [but] it is also sufficient. It tells us all that we need to know. It might not tell us everything we would like to know. ... There are some things we are not given to know. So many heresies arise from an effort to answer a question the Bible doesn't even consider.

"So much false teaching comes out of an ambition to come up with something new, when what we're to do is to tell the old, old story."

Mohler told the graduates that there is much to be gained through Christian ministry, although the gains cannot be measured in financial wealth and prosperity.

"Some think that religion is a way to riches," he said. "That is hard to believe when you look at the faithful teachers of the gospel [and] you look at those who are spending their lives on the mission fields. ... Authentic Christianity is not a way to riches -- at least not material riches."

Criticizing what some call the health and wealth movement, Mohler said the true rewards in Christian ministry can be seen "in transformed lives, in persons who come to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, in sinners saved by grace, in Christians growing in grace [and] in churches built up in the faith and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Mohler concluded by challenging the graduates to "fight the good fight" with the spiritual weapons found in 1 Timothy 6:11: righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness.

"To the secular mind ... it doesn't appear like this is much to take into battle," Mohler said. "Just think of the great military battles of history. Think of the great warriors and the great generals. How many of them are described as patient and gentle?

"But [those are the weapons] the Christian minister has. Those are the virtues we are to emulate. In the purist sense, there is no more powerful set of weaponry in the hands of the Christian minister than these virtues."

*

[The first of a six-part series]

1. WHO ARE THE MORMONS?

A. HISTORY.

Mormonism started in 1830 with 24-year-old year old Joseph Smith Jr. According to Smith, he had several experiences, during which God, Jesus, and the angel Moroni gave him instructions. Part of the instructions was to dig up some gold plates buried by the angel Moroni around A.D. 400 on a hill just outside of Smith’s town of Palmyra, New York. Smith dug up the plates, claimed they were written in “Reformed Egyptian,” and that God had given him the ability to translate them. This translation became known as the Book of Mormon, an account of the ancient inhabitants of North America between 600 B.C. and A.D. 400 (see endnote 1).

Mormons have four sources of authority: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has become one of the fastest growing religions in the world. In 1997, Latter-day Saints membership totaled just shy of 10 million worldwide (endnote 2). The church owns many businesses, including Brigham Young University.

B. DOCTRINES.

Mormon beliefs are fundamentally different from biblical Christianity. These have been detailed in other publications (endnote 3). Therefore, it will not be the purpose of this article to spell out the differences in Mormon and Christian doctrine, but rather to answer the question, “Is Mormonism true?” However, a few of the more peculiar Mormon doctrines are mentioned below:

1. God. Once a human as we are now, and progressed to become God. He is one of many Gods.

2. Man. Has the ability to progress and become a god just as Jehovah did.

3. Marriage. Polygamy is no longer advocated, although it once was encouraged.

4. Jesus. The son of God, but not part of the Godhead.

Mormons do not believe in the Trinity (endnote 4).

C. THE PEOPLE.

Mormons are wonderful people who are very sincere about their faith and are very caring. Conversations with Mormon missionaries promise to be cordial. Although Mormon scholars, such as those at Brigham Young University, are well aware of the challenges which face Mormonism, Mormon laity, including Mormon missionaries, are pretty much in the dark and will be surprised when you share the information contained in the first half of this book.

2. WHAT MORMONS TELL YOU WHEN THEY KNOCK ON YOUR DOOR

When Mormons visit you, they usually will not focus on the doctrines previously mentioned. In fact, they probably will not even bring them up during the first few meetings. Instead they will seek to find common ground with you on many of the doctrines Christians believe. For example, they may begin by saying that God revealed the Old Testament through Moses and the Prophets. Then Jesus came, was crucified and resurrected. His disciples wrote books and letters that became the New Testament. We all agree on these facts. Then the differences begin. They will tell you that before Jesus’ ascension into heaven, He appeared to the inhabitants of North America and gave them the Gospel as well. His message and the history of these inhabitants from 600 B.C. to A.D. 400 are recorded in the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, they will tell you that since the apostles were not replaced when they were killed, the Church went into apostasy. In other words, it abandoned the true faith, and consequently, a restoration was necessary. Mormons believe that God chose Joseph Smith to bring that restoration; therefore, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true Church.

3. HOW TO ANSWER MORMONS

Mormons are well equipped to answer many of the issues Christians bring to their attention and have answers adequate to silence the average critic. The Mormon missionaries who come to your door are cordial and will listen to what you have to say. Enjoy the opportunity to share your faith with them, but be prepared by having good answers.

Although there are many issues which you may bring to the Mormons’ attention, focus on four that are of primary importance. These will be the focus of the first half of this book and are:

A. The Bible is reliable.

Mormons claim that the Bible has been corrupted over the years as evidenced by the many different translations. How do we know that the Bible we have today is the same as it was two thousand years ago? In Part 2 we will see that the original words of the Bible have been preserved with remarkable purity and that its accuracy has been confirmed by both history and archaeology. We will also discuss how the variances among English translations do not call into question the preservation of the Bible over the years. Until you have shown this to a Mormon, it is useless to point out that some Mormon doctrines differ from the Bible. They will only respond that the Bible is unreliable. This is our topic in the next part of this series.

B. There is no archaeological confirmation of the Book of Mormon.

While the spade of the archaeologist has confirmed many places and peoples mentioned in the Bible, it has not been at all favorable to the Book of Mormon. Although Mormons will confidently assert that archaeology has confirmed the Book of Mormon’s accuracy time and time again, professional archaeologists have arrived at quite a different conclusion. You will find out more about this problem in Part 3.

C. The Book of Abraham is a fraud.

The Book of Abraham is one of the books in the Pearl of Great Price, one of Mormonism’s scriptures. Joseph Smith purchased some ancient Egyptian papyri and claimed it was an original book penned by Abraham himself while in Egypt. He translated it allegedly by the same gift which God had given him to translate the Book of Mormon. Professional Egyptologists have translated the papyri since their rediscovery in 1967. Their translations bear no resemblance to Smith’s translation, exposing him as a charlatan. You will find out about this subject of which few Mormons are even aware in Part 4.

D. Evidence for Mormonism?

Mormons are convinced that Mormonism is true because of the inward testimony of God that tells them so. If you are going to be effective when talking to Mormons, it is crucial that you address this issue as well. Otherwise, no amount of solid evidence, which testifies against Mormonism, will be of help to them. See that their approach is neither prudent nor biblical. This will be addressed in Part 5.

Part 6 will show you how to communicate these four issues so that you will be able to respond intelligently and effectively to Mormons the next time they knock on your door.

________

Mike Licona is the director of apologetics & interfaith evangelism at the Southern Baptist North American Mission Board.

ENDNOTES

1. It was originally believed that the events described in the Book of Mormon occurred in North America. Most Mormons who come to your door believe this. However, since no archaeological evidence has surfaced, Mormon scholars also consider Central America as a possible setting. However, this theory has serious problems, as we shall see in Chapter 3.

2. TIME, Aug. 4, 1997, p. 52.

3. Jerald and Sandra Tanner. “Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?” (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Mission, 1982). The Tanners are former Mormons who have written many books on Mormonism and have one of the best-known ministries to Mormons. For information, you may order from your bookstore, call Utah Lighthouse Ministry at 801-485-8894 or reach them on the Internet at www.utlm.org. Judy Robertson. “No Regrets” (Indianapolis: Light & Life Communications, 1997). Judy and her husband Jim also are former Mormons. Jim is a former bishop. For information, you may order from your local bookstore, call the author at 602-833-2537 or reach them on the Internet atwww.concernedchristians.org. Henry L. Ropp. “Is Mormonism Christian?”(Joplin: College Press Publishing Company, 1995). These books discuss the doctrines and problems of Mormonism in depth.

4. For a defense of the Trinity, see “What to say to Jehovah’s Witnesses when they knock on your door.”

*

[Original illustration at this number was added to HolwickID #15265]

The greatest danger facing evangelicals are errors that modern leaders often fail to see, New Testament scholar D.A. Carson said.

While liberalism within the evangelical church has largely been defeated, other dangers lurk, said Carson, professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School who has authored scores of books, including “The Gagging of God,” “Exegetical Fallacies” and “The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God.”

“I suspect, right now, that this seminary -- in fact, the SBC as a whole -- is not particularly in danger ... from classic liberalism,” Carson said in a lecture at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Sept. 4. “You fought that one. So what is it that you don’t see?

“It is so easy to go on and on and on and on about yesterday’s errors. But in my view, the dangers facing contemporary evangelicalism at large have very little to do with classic liberalism.”

Whereas evangelicalism once wrestled with liberal theology and practice as its chief enemy, today the church faces others that are more subtle and more insidious, Carson said.

Several potential enemies that might work against the gospel today were listed by Carson, including postmodernism, “knee-jerk” conservatism, mean-spirited triumphalism, movements questioning the atonement of Christ and openness of God theology.

“[These] really don’t come out of classical liberalism,” he said. “They come out of other corners.”

Evangelical leaders must be aware that they see through a glass dimly when it comes to being able to discern error in their midst, Carson said. To avoid these errors, leaders of the contemporary church must be vigilant and live in humble submission to the authority of Scripture, he said.

This also demands careful and rigorous study of the Word of God and the learning of church history as well, Carson said.

“That means we are to walk humbly,” he said. “Most of us think we see much more than we do. We are to look around for mature Christian leaders who are not merely building their empires [but] who are informed, humble [and] godly.

“[We must] read and re-read and think and re-think and learn some church history and study Scripture again and again and again. The devil is not only a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, he goes around as an angel of light, deceiving if it is possible, the very elect.”

The Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson is the Episcopal Church's first openly homosexual bishop. In an interview with THE TIMES [London], Robinson explains that he was attracted to the Anglican tradition because of its spirit of enquiry:

‘Yes. I go off to college, which quite coincidentally happened

to be owned by the southern dioceses of the Episcopal Church and

met an assistant chaplain there. When I raised my questions

again, instead of telling me that I shouldn’t be asking, instead

he congratulated me on asking all the right questions and said he

didn’t have all the answers, but I was welcome to come in and

let’s look for those answers together. I remember being struck

at how undefensive he was about his religion – that Anglicanism

seemed to be big enough and broad enough to allow and even

encourage those kinds of questions. It had its own answers, but

it existed to help me come to my own answers. I remember

thinking ‘gosh, that seems to me to be the way religion ought to

be’. So I was very encouraged by that. One day when I was

ranting and raving about how much of the Nicene Creed I didn’t

believe, he said ‘well, when you’re in church, just say the parts

of the creed you do agree with. Be silent for the others. We’re

not asking you do so something against your integrity’. And

again I thought whew, that’s what one would hope for from a

religion – honesty and integrity. And I guess that’s a theme

that has carried throughout my life in Ministry – that God wants

us to be honest and full of integrity.

This is indeed a fascinating and revealing recollection. As a young man, Gene Robinson ranted and raved to an assistant chaplain of his Episcopal college about “how much of the Nicene Creed I didn’t believe.” The chaplain’s response is classic liberalism -- just say what you believe and stay silent for the rest.

The Nicene Creed, we should remember, is one of the touchstones of Christian orthodoxy -- a creed that defines the full deity of Christ and affirms a summary of biblical teachings concerning the Christ:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and

earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,

begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of

Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one

substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for

us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was

incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made

man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He

suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again

according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and

sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again

with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom

shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life,

who proceedeth from the Father and the Son together is worshipped

and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one

holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism

for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of

the dead, and the life of the world to come. AMEN

This is the creed about which Bishop Robinson, as a young college student, ranted and raved. This is the creed in which he found so much he did not believe. This is the very essence of Christian doctrine. Without these truths, there is no Christianity.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #7383]

Villa Baviera is a religious cult and colony of Germans in Chile. They came there in the 1960s following Paul Schaefer, a charismatic World War II German army nurse, who cult members thought was God on earth and who preached an unnamed religion that said harsh discipline would draw them closer to the Supreme Being. The cult lived frozen in time, the 280 members singing German folk songs and working the fields wearing 1930s Bavarian peasant garb.

The apocalyptic cult barred itself behind a perimeter fence guarded by cameras and motion detectors, and once even taunted police with Nazi salutes. Beatings to enforce discipline were widespread, and some members were forced to take drugs to quell sexual desires. A judge is probing reports it provided torture chambers for the secret police during Chile's 1973-1990 military dictatorship.

Schaefer, now believed to be 81, banned television and telephones and blotted references to love and sex out of the Bible. Over the years, defectors reported the cult split babies from their parents at birth and banned normal contact between family members. Young men and women were not allowed to date.

After a while the prohibition against marriage broke down. One couple now regrets that they sacrificed child-bearing years to Schaefer's vision. His prohibitions on contact worked so well that almost no babies were born there for 25 years. Control was so pervasive, “We didn't even know what each other thought,” one member said in reference to her husband.

In 1997 Schaeffer disappeared but the colony continued functioning under the rule of loyal elders. It turned out Shaeffer had come to Chile to flee sex abuse charges in Germany. Decades later, some two dozen children who went to the cult's free clinic and school reported sexual abuse and the authorities began a long and intensive investigation.

“Everyone saw him as a celestial being and no one dared doubt him. People were blind here. It was a huge shock to discover the truth,” said Michael Mueller, a 47-year-old member.

This likely comes as no surprise to most believers, but the mainstream media's presentation of Christianity is seldom offered in a positive light. The "left" or "liberal" view of the faith tends to be given more credibility and the "conservative" interpretation often gets short shrift. Interestingly, the ABC network -- which offered up another biased "Jesus" special on Monday night -- admits to such bias.

Television coverage of religious issues is up sharply compared to a year ago -- that according to a study from the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog. A study released on Monday finds the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts did 303 stories on religion during the 12 months that ended March 1, compared with 121 stories during a one-year period in 1993.

The report finds the increase was due to Mel Gibson's box-office smash The Passion of the Christ and the 25th anniversary of Pope John Paul II's reign as well as coverage of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, the struggle over a Ten Commandments monument in an Alabama courthouse and controversies over homosexual ministers.

Still, study author Tim Graham has complaints with the way many religious stories are reported. The group says the networks are often hostile to orthodox faiths and use mostly liberal religious scholars. He says believers "get excited" to see that religion is more in the news -- but that when secular biases appear in the reporting, they ask if it is really such a good thing.

Two pro-family groups are asking that exact question regarding ABC's Monday night broadcast of Jesus and Paul -- The Word and the Witness, a three-hour special hosted by Peter Jennings. According to the American Family Association, the program presented "expert" analysis from liberal theologians and carried an underlying worldview of distrust in scripture and Jesus' divinity.

"ABC-TV was unwilling to present a scriptural concept of Jesus, choosing to give a distorted view with the impression that the New Testament cannot be trusted," AFA says on its website. "Since (in their view) no reputable scholar trusts the New Testament, ABC elected to present modern day 'theologians' whom they portray as more knowledgeable and trustworthy to debunk the New Testament account."

Focus on the Family criticizes ABC for choosing Holy Week, the week leading up to Easter, to "attack the legitimacy of the literal interpretation of the Scriptures" and to try to "reduce the Word of God to myths." A spokesman for Focus says Jennings, who hosted a previous ABC special titled The Search for Jesus, was not successful in hiding his personal biases.

"Jennings repeatedly refers to 'the Jesus movement' as if it were just another political party or faction," Tom Neven says. "They also pit Paul against Jesus, as if the apostle taught things that contradicted Jesus, and some refer to Paul as 'the founder of Christianity.'"

American Family Association has contacted its supporters, asking them to voice their disapproval of ABC's biased reporting, labeling it as another example of the network's "disrespect for the Christian faith."

A Not-So-Shocking Revelation

In a fairly stunning admission earlier this year, an ABC News column on its website stated that the U.S. media leans left on a number of critical political and cultural issues.

"The Note," which declares itself on the site to be from the "ABC News political unit," posted its thoughts in a February 9 column, admitting: "Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections."

What are those biases? "They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the [accepted positions], while more conservative positions are 'conservative positions,'" the column said.

In late 2001, Bernard Goldberg, a 28-year veteran at CBS and a winner of six Emmy Awards during his career, criticized the news media in his best-selling book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News. Goldberg said that his experience at CBS demonstrated that the media is biased against conservatives and Christians.

2 Peter 2:3–5 — Doom of Destructive Teachers (1) — « Leader information shown in this fashion »

A. Their Dealings 2 Peter 2:3a

1. AV – And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: …

2. NAS – and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; …

3. NIV – In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. …

4. J. B. Phillips – In their lust to make converts these men will try to exploit you too with their bogus arguments. …

5. NLT – In their greed they will make up clever lies to get hold of your money. …

6. “covetousnesss”

a. AV: nearly always translated covetousness or greediness

b. this word reflects both A « ctions » _______ and A « ttitudes » ________ that entirely disregard the rights of others « (which is really the essence of breaking the tenth commandment) »

7. “feigned” « — Greek, plastos, root is plasso, meaning to mould as out of clay; from this we get English, “plastic.” This allows their words to take on whatever meaning they want. Romanism has recently taken to using such reformation words as justification but with a sense far different from that in the Bible »

a. so, what they teach is F « ictictious » ___________ just like fables

8. “make merchandise” « — Greek, emporeuomai from which we get the English word? … emporium »

a. to travel as a M « erchant » _________, to engage in T « rade » _____, to T « raffic » _________ or do business with

9. what is the attitude of false teachers towards their disciples? « — they are a meal-ticket; a source for aggrrandising themselves; objects to be manipulated »

10. what requirement is found in 1 Timothy 3: 1–13 to address this danger? « — Christian leaders are devoid of the money motive; the ministry is not to be a job but a calling »

B. Their Destiny 2 Peter 2:3b

1. AV – whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

2. NAS – their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

3. NIV – Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

4. J. B. Phillips – But judgment has been for some time hard on their heels and their downfall is inevitable.

5. NLT – But God condemned them long ago, and their destruction is on the way.

6. “judgment”

a. context here shows this to be a decision already rendered « — in verse 1 they are classified with the OT false prophets upon whom judgment has already been pronounced »

b. what do you note about such teachers in Jude 4?

(A) their entry « into the church is secret, surreptitious »

(B) they are already « marked for condemnation »

7. “of a long time” « — “from of old” »

a. reading the various translations, what do you conclude about their judgment? « — that their presence is of no surprise to God and that their verdict has been spoken »

8. “lingereth not” — NAS is most literal translation

a. expressed positively, their judgment is P « ending » _________

9. “damnation” — same word as found twice in verse 1

a. the destructive teaching brings destruction to the teacher

10. “slumbereth not”

a. expressed positively, their destruction is A « wakened » _________

11. what is the destiny of these false teachers? « — every indication is they are headed for eternal punishment; their every description is not of making an error in teaching through ignorance, but the deliberate, antagonistic teaching counter to the gospel »

12. then there follow a number of examples of God’s certain judgment, of which we will look today at the first two

C. A Doom like that of the Fallen Angels 2 Peter 2:4

1. AV – For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

2. NAS – For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;

3. NIV – For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;

4. J. B. Phillips – For if God did not spare angels who sinned against him, but banished them to the dark imprisonment of hell till judgment day;

5. NLT – For God did not spare even the angels when they sinned; He threw them into hell, in gloomy caves and darkness until the judgment day.

6. “spared” — to abstain from treating with severity; to treat with forbearance … an exercise of God’s P « atience » _________ « it is important to note that God’s patience is not something we can count upon as our right; it is a sovereign action of His mercy; the angels were not granted that mercy »

7. “angels”

a. the word primarily means “messengers” or “ones who are sent” but most commonly in the Bible refers to the heavenly or celestial messengers who attend to the service of God

b. Matthew 25:41, 2 Corinthians 12:7, Revelation 12:9; whom do these angels serve? « — Satan »

8. “sinned”

a. sometimes called “fallen” based on Jude 6 because …? « — they chose to leave off serving God to serve a lesser »

b. so what was the sin? See 1 John 3:8, 10 which tells us that Satan, who is the master of these angels, … « sinned from the beginning, which I understand to mean before the creation of mankind … “beginning” is anarthrous just as it is in John 1:1 so at beginning times Satan who entered the garden of God was a fallen being (Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28) »

9. “cast … hell” — literally, “cast them into Tartarus” which is considered to be the same as “the abyss” « (whither Legion pleaded not to be sent, Luke 8:31, and over which Abaddon is king, Rev. 9:11) being held until cast into the lake of fire, Rev 20) »

10. “pits of darkness” — as opposed to the glories of heaven

11. “reserved” — literally, kept, watched over or guarded « — the account of Legion suggests demons could roam earth (was this Satan’s domain, Job 1:7, 2:2, Luke 4:6?) in a restricted fashion, as they had to ask permission to remain there rather than be totally shut away; the Bible discloses only so much information … but it is sufficient to know how terrible is God’s judgment. »

D. A Doom like that of Noah’s neighbours 2 Peter 2:5

1. AV – And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

2. NAS – and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

3. NIV – if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;

4. J. B. Phillips – if he did not spare the ancient world but only saved Noah, the solitary voice that cried out for righteousness, and his seven companions when he brought the flood upon the world in its wickedness;

5. NLT – And God did not spare the ancient world – except for Noah and his family of seven. Noah warned the world of God’s righteous judgement.

6. “spared” — as in verse 4

7. “old world” — that is, the world before the flood — which included? « — all living mankind save the eight; all birds and animals save those in the ark »

8. “saved” — literally, kept, put a watch over, guarded (but a different word from “reserved” in the preceding verse)

9. “eighth” — who benefited by the grace that Noah found in the eyes of God (compare Ezekiel 14:14, 20 and Genesis 6:18)? « — his immediate family alone at the time … is there an implication in Ezekiel of Noah’s intercession? All mankind thereafter. But can also interpret Ezekiel passage as saying his wife and children had to make their own decision. »

10. “preacher” — one who proclaims or heralds — to whom? « — the ungodly world that would perish in the flood; a preacher with only 7 converts for perhaps 100 years of ministry. »

11. “righteousness” — what information did Noah have that he could preach on this subject, as found in …

a. … Genesis 6:5, 11–12? « — the sin of mankind all around him and their need for repentance »

b. … Hebrews 11:7? « — the coming judgment and the need for the obedience by faith to enter into the ark »

Headlines around the world are announcing the publication of a “long lost” and “suppressed” ancient document, known as THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS. The National Geographic Society announced the publication at a major media event on Thursday, just in time to boost publicity for its Sunday night special on the National Geographic Channel.

The announcement led to a frenzy of media coverage, ranging from responsible reports to outrageous sensationalism. According to some commentators, the publication of this new document will force a complete reformulation of Christianity and our understanding of both Judas and Jesus. In reality, nothing of the sort is in view. The document is highly interesting, however, offering an ancient and authoritative source into the thinking of heretical groups who offered alternative understandings of Christianity.

The document purports to be written by Judas, even though it certainly was written long after Judas's death. Nevertheless, the very existence of this document, rooted in the third century after Christ, indicates something of the struggle Christian leaders confronted in defining and defending the authentic Gospel against heretical groups such as the Gnostics.

A quick look at THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS reveals the contrast between this document and the four canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The English version, edited by Rudolphe Kasser, Marvin Meyer, and Gregor Wurst, presents an accessible and readable version of the portions of the CODEX TCHACOS now available. The most remarkable feature of this text is its thoroughly Gnostic character. The substance of this gospel bears virtually no resemblance to orthodox Christianity -- a fact which explains why the early church recognized this writing for what it is, and rejected it as neither authoritative nor authentic.

In THE LOST GOSPEL: THE QUEST FOR THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS ISCARIOT, Herbert Krosney explains how the codex was discovered and traces the events that led to its publication in English this week:

“In the mid- to late 1970s, hidden for more than fifteen hundred years, an ancient text emerged from the sands of Egypt. Near the banks of the Nile River, some Egyptian peasants, "fellahin," stumbled upon a cavern. In biblical times, such chambers had been used to bury the dead. The peasants entered the cave, seeking ancient gold or jewelry, anything of value that they could sell. Instead, among a pile of human bones, they discovered a crumbling limestone box. Inside it, they came upon an unexpected find -- a mysterious leather-bound book, a codex.”

The portion of the text that is now translated is taken from thirteen pages of papyrus, with the text written in Coptic, a language of ancient Egypt. Most scholars agree that THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS was originally written in Greek, and later translated into Coptic. This was the common history of many Gnostic texts, especially those associated with groups common to the area in which the manuscript was found.

THE LOST GOSPEL reads like a suspense thriller at times, tracing the odd and admittedly remarkable story of how the codex was preserved and eventually published. Those familiar with the story of the Dead Sea scrolls and the documents of the Nag Hammadi library will recognize significant parallels in the saga of how the texts and manuscripts were found and eventually made available for scholarly review and publication.

The Gnostic character of the text is immediately evident. In his supposed conversations with Judas, Jesus speaks in Gnostic categories such as “aeons” and an “eternal realm.” Judas is identified as the “thirteenth spirit” who was appointed by God to be the agent of releasing Jesus from the physical body in which He was trapped in the incarnation.

When Judas speaks of a vision and asks for its interpretation, Jesus answers: “Judas, your star has led you astray.” Jesus continues: “No person of mortal birth is worthy to enter the house you have seen, for that place is reserved for the holy. Neither the sun nor the moon will rule there, nor the day, but the holy will abide there always, in the eternal realm with the holy angels. Look, I have explained to you the mysteries of the kingdom and I have taught you about the error of the stars; and ... sent it ... on the twelve aeons.”

The concept of secret and mysterious knowledge was central to Gnostic sects. THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS purports to reveal conversations between Jesus and Judas that had been kept secret from the rest of humanity. The Gnostics prized their secret knowledge, and taught a profound dualism between the material and spiritual worlds. They understood the material world, including the entire cosmos, to be a trap for the spiritual world. In essence, the Gnostics sought to escape the material world and to enter the world of spirit.

Accordingly, the most revealing statement in the entire text of THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS records Jesus saying to Judas, “But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.”

In other words, Judas would perform a service to Jesus by betraying Him to those who would then crucify Him, liberating Jesus from the physical body and freeing Him as spirit. As the editors of The GOSPEL OF JUDAS indicate in a footnote, “The death of Jesus, with the assistance of Judas, is taken to be the liberation of the spiritual person within.”

Needless to say, this is in direct conflict with the Christian gospel and the New Testament. The consistent witness of the New Testament is that Jesus came in order to die for sinners -- willingly accepting the cross and dying as the substitutionary sacrifice for sin.

This redemptive action is completely missing from THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS. For that reason, the text was rejected by early Christian leaders. Writing about the year 180, Irenaeus, a major figure among the early church fathers, identified the text now known as THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS as heretical. In his foreword to THE LOST GOSPEL, Bart Ehrman, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explains, “This gospel was about the relationship between Jesus and Judas, and indicated that Judas didn't actually betray Jesus, but did what Jesus wanted him to do, because Judas was the one who really knew the truth, as Jesus wanted it communicated.”

Ehrman, no friend to orthodox Christianity, has correctly explained the problem. Irenaeus rejected the text precisely because it was in direct conflict with the canonical gospels and with the teaching of the Apostles. Accordingly, it was his responsibility to warn the church about the heretical nature of this document. Still, the very fact that Irenaeus mentions the document with such a specific reference gives considerable credence to the claim that THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS is as old in its origin as its patrons now claim.

We now know a great deal about the Gnostic sects common to the first centuries of Christianity. The particular sect thought to be associated with the origin of THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS was known as the Cainites. The peculiar teachings of this sect included the rehabilitation of many characters presented negatively in the Bible -- starting with Cain. In essence, the Cainites attempted to take the negative figures of the Bible and present them in a heroic light. In order to do this, of course, they had to create alternative texts and an alternative rendering of the story of Jesus.

What are Christians to make of all this? The publication of THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS is a matter of genuine interest. After all, it is important for Christians to understand the context of early Christianity -- a context in which the church was required to exercise tremendous discernment in confronting heretical teachings and rejecting spurious texts.

The scholarly research behind the publication of THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS appears to be sound and responsible. The codex manuscript was submitted to the most rigorous historical process in terms of dating, chemical composition, and similar questions. In the end, it appears that the document is most likely authentic, in terms of its origin from within a heretical sect in the third century.

Nevertheless, extravagant claims about the theological significance of THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS are unwarranted, ridiculous, and driven by those who themselves call for a reformulation of Christianity.

The resurgence of interest in Gnostic texts such as THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS and THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS is driven by an effort, at least on the part of some figures, to argue that early Christianity had no essential theological core. Instead, scholars such as Elaine Pagels of Princeton University want to argue that, “These discoveries are exploding the myth of a monolithic religion, and demonstrating how diverse -- and fascinating -- the early Christian movement really was.” What Pagels and many other figures argue is that early Christianity was a cauldron of competing theologies, and that ideological and political factors explain why an “orthodox” tradition eventually won, suppressing all competing theologies. Accordingly, these same figures argue that today's Christians should be open to these variant teachings that had long been suppressed and hidden from view.

Metropolitan Bishoy, leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church, dismissed THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS as “non-Christian babbling resulting from a group of people trying to create a false 'amalgam' between the Greek mythology and Far East religions with Christianity ... They were written by a group of people who were aliens to the main Christian stream of the early Christianity. These texts are neither reliable nor accurate Christian texts, as they are historically and logically alien to the main Christian thinking and philosophy of the early and present Christians.” The Metropolitan is right, but we are better armed to face the heresies of our own day if we face with honesty the heresies of times past.

Simon Gathercole, a New Testament professor at Aberdeen University, defended the text as authentic, but relatively unimportant. “It is certainly an ancient text, but not ancient enough to tell us anything new,” Gathercole explains. “It contains themes which are alien to the first-century world of Jesus and Judas, but which became popular later.”

Indeed, those Gnostic ideas DID become popular later, and they are becoming increasingly popular now. The truth of the Gospel stands, and Christians will retain firm confidence in the authenticity of the New Testament and, in particular, of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Nevertheless, old Gnosticisms are continually repackaged and “rediscovered” even as new forms of Gnostic thought emerge in our postmodern culture.

Informed Christians will be watchful and aware when confronting churches or institutions that present spurious writings, rejected as heretical by the early church, on the same plane as the New Testament.

The verdict of Athanasius, one of the greatest leaders of the early church, still stands: “Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these, for concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, 'Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, 'Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.'“

*

While the declarations of the Catholic Vatican II council of the 1960s did bring changes to the Catholic Church, it did not change its foundational dogmas. Not only did Vatican II uphold Rome's false dogmas, it actually strengthened them. The more than 2,400 bishops attending Vatican II reaffirmed such Roman heresies as papal supremacy, the Roman priesthood, the mass as a re-sacrifice of Christ, the sacramental gospel, Catholic tradition on equal par with Scripture, Mary as the Queen of Heaven and co-redemptress with Christ, auricular confession, pilgrimages to “holy shrines,” purgatory, and prayers to and for the dead.

All of these Roman dogmas are reaffirmed in Vatican Council II -- The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. This book is published by the Roman Catholic Church and contains the Imprimature: Walter P. Kellenberg, D,D., Bishop of Rockville Centre, Aug. 12, 1975. “Imprimature” is the official Catholic stamp of approval and means “let it be printed.”

Consider some quotes from the Vatican II documents:

THE MASS A RE-SACRIFICE OF CHRIST

“Hence the Mass, the Lord's Supper, is at the same time and inseparably: a sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated; a memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, who said 'do this in memory of me' (Lk. 22:19) In the Mass, therefore, the sacrifice and sacred meal belong to the same mystery-so much so that they are linked by the closest bond. For in the sacrifice of the Mass Our Lord is immolated when 'he begins to be present sacramentally as the spiritual food of the faithful under the appearances of bread and wine.’ For in it Christ perpetuates in an unbloody manner the sacrifice offered on the cross, offering himself to the Father for the world's salvation through the ministry of priests” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Introduction, C 1,2, p. 108).

CHRIST PRESENT IN THE ELEMENTS OF THE MASS

“In this sacrament Christ is present in a unique way, whole and entire, God and man, substantially and permanently. This presence of Christ under the species 'is called real, not in an exclusive sense, as if the other kinds of presence were not real, but par excellence” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, chap. 1, E, p. 114). “In the celebration of Mass there is proclaimed the wonderful mystery of the real presence of Christ our Lord under the eucharistic species. The Second Vatican Council and other magisterial pronouncements of the Church have confirmed this truth in the same sense and the same words as those in which the Council of Trent defined it as an article of faith. ... Christ becomes present through an essential change in the elements” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, General Instruction on the Roman Missal, foreword, 3, p. 154).

THE MASS IS A PART OF SALVATION

“As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which 'Christ our Pasch is sacrificed' (1 Cor. 5:7) is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter 1, 3, p. 324).

THE MASS THE CENTER OF CHRISTIAN LIFE

“The celebration of the Mass ... is the centre of the whole Christian life for the universal Church, the local Church and for each and every one of the faithful. For therein is the culminating action whereby God sanctifies the world in Christ and men worship the Father as they adore him through Christ the Son of God” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, General Instruction on the Roman Missal, chap. 1, 1, p. 159).

CHRIST IS TO BE WORSHIPPED IN THE WAFER

“The reservation of the sacred species for the sick ... led to the praiseworthy custom of adoring the heavenly food which is preserved in churches. This practice of adoration has a valid and firm foundation, especially since belief in the real presence of the Lord has as its natural consequence the external and public manifestation of that belief” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, chap. 3, I A, p. 131). “The faithful should therefore strive to worship Christ our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. ...Pastors [priests] should exhort them to this, and set them a good example. ... The place in a church or oratory where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the tabernacle [place where the consecrated wafer is kept and worshiped between Masses] should be truly prominent. It ought to be suitable for private prayer so that the faithful may easily and fruitfully, by private devotion also, continue to honour our Lord in this sacrament” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, chap. 3, I B, p. 132).

“Devotion, both private and public, towards the sacrament of the altar even outside Mass ... is highly recommended by the Church, since the eucharistic sacrifice is the source and summit of the whole Christian life” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, chap. 3, III, p. 134). “All the faithful ought to show to this most holy sacrament the worship which is due to the true God, as has always been the custom of the Catholic Church. Nor is it to be adored any the less because it was instituted by Christ to be eaten. For even in the reserved sacrament he is to be adored because he is substantially present there through that conversion of bread and wine which, as the Council of Trent tells us, is most aptly named transubstantiation” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Intro., C 6, pp. 109,10). “It is necessary to instruct the faithful that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Saviour and that the same worship and adoration given to God is owed to him present under the sacramental signs” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on Facilitating Sacramental Eucharistic Communion in Particular Circumstances, Piety and Reverence Towards the Sacrament, p. 221).

THE WAFER TO BE CARRIED IN PROCESSIONS

“In processions in which the Blessed Sacrament is solemnly carried through the streets to the singing of hymns, especially on the feast of Corpus Christi, the Christian people give public witness to their faith and devotion towards this sacrament” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, chap. 3, III, p. 134).

MASSES FOR THE DEAD

“Holy Mother Church is extremely concerned for the faithful departed. She has decided to intercede for them to the fullest extent in every Mass and abrogates every special privilege in this matter” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, V, Indulgences not Attached to Things and Places, Norms, 20, p. 87). “The Church offers the Paschal Sacrifice [the Mass] for the Dead so that ... the dead may be helped by the prayers and the living may be consoled by hope” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, General Instruction on the Roman Missal, VIII, Masses for the Dead, 335, p. 197).

MASS MUST BE PERFORMED IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH CATHOLIC TRADITION

“To safeguard the success of these celebrations and to obtain a greater spiritual efficaciousness ... attention must be given to the form. ... The texts of the Mass should be taken from the missal or from approved supplements. Every change ... is arbitrary and therefore rejected ... The furnishings of the altar (cross, altar cloth, candles, missal, purificator, corporal, hand towel and communion plate), the sacred vessels (chalice, paten, pyx), the vestments (amice, alb, cincture, stole and chasuble) should be, in number, form and quality, as desired by present legislation. ... The ritual gestures and the ceremonies of the celebrant, as well as the attitude of the participants should be those prescribed for the normal eucharistic celebration” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on Masses for Special Groups, 11a,b, p. 146).

THE WINE CAN BE TAKEN ONLY ON SPECIAL OCCASIONS

“First, they should be reminded that, according to the Catholic faith, Christ is received whole and entire in a complete sacrament even when people communicate under one kind only [take only the wafer without the juice]. And they are not thereby deprived of any grace necessary for salvation ... With the bishop's approval and after due instruction the following persons may receive Communion from the chalice ... [there follows 14 groups of persons who are permitted to partake of the juice during special Masses performed at weddings, baptisms, ordinations, and certain retreats]” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, General Instruction on the Roman Missal, IV, 241, 242, pp. 181-182)

CATHOLIC TRADITIONS ON EQUAL PAR WITH SCRIPTURE

“Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal ... Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence” (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, chap. 2, 9, p. 682).

SALVATION IS THROUGH THE SACRAMENTS AND THE CHURCH

“Just as Christ was sent by the Father so also he sent the apostles ... that they might preach the gospel to every creature and proclaim that the Son of God by his death and resurrection had freed us from the power of Satan and from death, and brought us into the Kingdom of his Father. But he also willed that the work of salvation which they preached should be set in train through the sacrifice and sacraments, around which the entire liturgical [ritualistic] life revolves. Thus by Baptism men are grafted into the paschal mystery of Christ. ... They receive the spirit of adoption as sons” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, chap. 1, I, 5,6, pp. 23-24).

“In that body the life of Christ is communicated to those who believe and who, through the sacraments, are united in a hidden and real way to Christ in his passion and glorification. Through baptism we are formed in the likeness of Christ: 'For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body' (1 Cor. 12:13). In this sacred rite fellowship in Christ's death and resurrection is symbolized and is brought about” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 1, 7, p. 327).

“For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, 'the work of our redemption is accomplished,' and it is through the liturgy, especially, that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Introduction, para. 2).

SALVATION DISTRIBUTED BY THE POPE

“For 'God's only-begotten Son ... has won a treasure for the militant Church ... he has entrusted it to blessed Peter, the key-bearer of heaven, and to his successors who are Christ's vicars on earth, so that they may distribute it to the faithful for their salvation. They may apply it with mercy for reasonable causes to all who have repented for and have confessed their sins. At times they may remit completely, and at other times only partially, the temporal punishment due to sin in a general as well as in special ways (insofar as they judge it to be fitting in the sight of the Lord). The merits of the Blessed Mother of God and of all the elect ... are known to add further to this treasury'“ (ellipsis are in the original) (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 4, 7, p. 80).

SALVATION THROUGH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

“For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fulness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God” (Decree on Ecumenism, chap. 1, 3, p. 415).

“This holy Council first of all turns its attention to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself on scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, II, 14, p. 336).

SALVATION BY GOOD WORKS

“From the most ancient times in the Church good works were also offered to God for the salvation of sinners, particularly the works which human weakness finds hard. Because the sufferings of the martyrs for the faith and for God's law were thought to be very valuable, penitents used to turn to the martyrs to be helped by their merits to obtain a more speedy reconciliation from the bishops. Indeed, the prayers and good works of holy people were regarded as of such great value that it could be asserted that the penitent was washed, cleansed and redeemed with the help of the entire Christian people” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 3, 6, pp. 78,79).

SALVATION THROUGH BAPTISM

“By the sacrament of Baptism, whenever it is properly conferred in the way the Lord determined and received with the proper dispositions of soul, man becomes truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ and is reborn to a sharing of the divine life” (Decree on Ecumenism, chap. 3, II, 22, p. 427).

SALVATION IS THROUGH INDULGENCES AND RITUAL

“By means of indulgences those members of the Church who are enduring their purification are united more speedily to the members who are in heaven ... holy Mother Church again recommends the practice of indulgences to the faithful. ... The remission of punishment by distribution from the Church's treasury is incorporated into it. The Church recommends its faithful not to abandon or neglect the holy traditions of those who have gone before. They should be welcomed in a religious spirit as a precious treasure of the Catholic family and esteemed as such. ... The Church reminds them constantly of the things which should be given preference because they are necessary or at least better and more efficacious helps in the task of winning salvation” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 4, 10,11, p. 82).

SALVATION CAN BE ACHIEVED THROUGH NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS (One wonders how Rome can teach this when we just read above that salvation comes only through the Catholic Church? Rome contradicts herself often, and of course both pronouncements here are false teaching.)

“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems. These profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day... Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 2, 16, p. 338).

SALVATION GRACE IS NOT FREE BUT MUST BE EARNED

“All children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be the more severely judged” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 2, 14, p. 337).

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THE ONLY TRUE CHURCH

“This is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care. ... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 1, 8, p. 329). “For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fulness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God” (Decree on Ecumenism, chap. 1, 3, p. 415).

THE POPE IS THE SUPREME HEAD OF THE CHURCH

“The college or body of bishops has for all that no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head, whose primatial authority, let it be added, over all, whether pastors or faithful, remains in its integrity. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 3, 22, p. 344).

THE POPE IS THE INFALLIBLE TEACHER

“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful-who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk. 22:32)-he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. For that very reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church... as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal. For in such a case the Roman Pontiff does not utter a pronouncement as a private person, but rather does he expound and defend the teaching of the Catholic faith as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the Church's charism of infallibility is present in a singular way” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 3, 25, p. 349).

“This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 3, 25, p. 348).

MARY THE SINLESS MOTHER OF GOD, PERPETUAL VIRGIN, BODILY ASSUMED INTO HEAVEN AS QUEEN OVER ALL

“Joined to Christ the head and in communion with all his saints, the faithful must in the first place reverence the memory of the glorious ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ... Because of the gift of sublime grace she far surpasses all creatures, both in heaven and on earth... The Immaculate Virgin preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords (cf. Apoc. 19:16) and conqueror of sin and death” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, I, 52,53; II, 59, pp. 378,381- 382).

MARY IS CO-REDEMPTRESS WITH CHRIST

“Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man's salvation through faith and obedience. For as St. Irenaeus says, she being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching ... 'death through Eve, life through Mary.’ This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, II, 56, pp. 380-381).

MARY INTERCEDES FOR MEN FROM HEAVEN AND AIDS IN THEIR SALVATION

“Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into their blessed home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, II, 62, pp. 382-383).

MARY TO BE VENERATED

“Mary has by grace been exalted above all angels and men to a place second only to her Son, as the most holy mother of God who was involved in the mysteries of Christ: she is rightly honored by a special cult in the Church. ... The sacred synod teaches this Catholic doctrine advisedly and at the same time admonishes all the sons of the Church that the cult, especially the liturgical cult, of the Blessed Virgin, be generously fostered, and that the practices and exercises of devotion towards her, recommended by the teaching authority of the Church in the course of centuries be highly esteemed, and that those decrees, which were given in the early days regarding the cult images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and the saints, be religiously observed” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, IV, The Cult of the Blessed Virgin in the Church, 66,67, pp. 384-385).

INTERCESSIONS OF AND PRAYERS TO DEAD SAINTS

“The 'treasury of the Church' ... is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ's merits have before God. ... This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body. ... The union of the living with their brethren who have fallen asleep in Christ is not broken. ... Now that they are welcomed in their own country and at home with the Lord, through him, with him and in him they intercede unremittingly with the Father on our behalf, offering the merit they acquired on earth through Christ Jesus. ... Their brotherly care is the greatest help to our weakness” (The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 2, 5, pp. 76,77).

“In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honoured with great respect the memory of the dead ... she has always venerated them, together with the Blessed Virgin Mary and the holy angels, with a special love, and has asked piously for the help of their intercession. ... When, then, we celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice [the Mass] we are most closely united to the worship of the heavenly Church; when in the fellowship of communion we honor and remember the glorious Mary ever virgin, St. Joseph, the holy apostles and martyrs and all the saints” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, I, 52,53; II, 59, pp. 375,377). “Holy Mother Church is extremely concerned for the faithful departed. She has decided to intercede for them to the fullest extent in every Mass and abrogates every special privilege in this matter” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, V, Norms, 20, p. 87).

PURGATORY NECESSARY TO PURGE SIN

“The doctrine of purgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guilt of sin has been taken away, punishment for it or the consequences of it may remain to be expiated or cleansed. They often are. In fact, in purgatory the souls of those who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but who had not made satisfaction with adequate penance for their sins and omissions are cleansed after death with punishments designed to purge away their debt” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 1, 3, p. 75).

PRIESTS HAVE SPECIAL POWERS TO BESTOW SPIRITUAL BLESSING

“However, the Lord also appointed certain men as ministers, in order that they might be united in one body in which 'all the members have not the same function' (Rom. 12:4). These men were to hold in the community of the faithful the sacred power of Order, that of offering sacrifice and forgiving sins, and were to exercise the priestly office publicly on behalf of men in the name of Christ” (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, chap. 1, 2, p. 776). “Priests, while being taken from amongst men and appointed for men in the things that appertain to God that they may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins, live with the rest of men as with brothers” (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, chap. 1, 3, p. 778). “The purpose then for which priests are consecrated by God through the ministry of the bishop is that they should be made sharers in a special way in Christ's priesthood and, by carrying out sacred functions, act as his ministers who through his Spirit continually exercises his priestly function for our benefit in the liturgy. By Baptism priests introduce men into the People of God; by the sacrament of Penance they reconcile sinners with God and the Church; by the Anointing of the sick they relieve those who are ill; and especially by the celebration of Mass they offer Christ's sacrifice sacramentally” (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, chap. 2, I, 5, p. 781).

CATHOLIC PRIESTS SHARE CHRIST'S IDENTICAL PRIESTHOOD

“All priests share with the bishops the one identical priesthood and ministry of Christ” (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, chap. 2, II, 7, p. 786).

CHURCH HAS POWER TO GRANT INDULGENCES; THOSE WHO SAY CHURCH HAS NO SUCH POWER ARE CURSED

“Indulgences are ... the taking away of the temporal punishment due to sins when their guilt has already been forgiven. ... in granting an indulgence the Church uses its power as minister of Christ's Redemption. ... It teaches and commands that the usage of indulgences-a usage most beneficial to Christians and approved by the authority of the Sacred Councils-should be kept in the Church; and it condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them. ... By means of indulgences those members of the Church who are enduring their purification are united more speedily to the members who are in heaven in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, IV, 8, 10, pp. 80-82).

RITUALS AND SUPERSTITIOUS PRACTICES ENCOURAGED

“The faithful who use with devotion an object of piety (crucifix, cross, Rosary, scapular or medal) after it has been duly blessed by any priest, can gain a partial indulgence. But if this object of piety is blessed by the Pope or any bishop, the faithful who use it with devotion can also gain a plenary indulgence on the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul. ... When one of the faithful is in danger of death and no priest in available to administer the sacraments to him with the apostolic blessing ... holy Mother Church still grants a plenary indulgence to be gained at the moment of death, on condition that they are properly disposed and have been in the habit of reciting some prayers during their lifetime. The practice of using a crucifix or cross while gaining this plenary indulgence is praiseworthy” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, V, Norms, 17,18, p. 86).

CONFESSION AND PENANCE AID IN CONVERSION

“The sacrament of Penance restores and strengthens in members of the Church who have sinned the fundamental gift of ... conversion to the kingdom of Christ, which is first received in Baptism. ... Those who approach this sacrament receive from God's mercy the pardon of their offences and at the same time they are reconciled to the Church which they have wounded by their sins. The Religious should likewise hold in high esteem the frequent use of this sacrament ... desiring closer union with God, should endeavour to receive the sacrament of penance frequently, that is, twice a month ... To ensure legitimate liberty, all women religious and novices may make their confession validly and licitly to any priest approved for hearing confessions in the locality” (Decree on Confession for Religious, pp. 611,612).

CELIBACY IMPOSED

“For these reasons, based on the mystery of Christ and his mission, celibacy, which at first was recommended to priests, was afterwards in the Latin Church imposed by law on all who were to be promoted to holy Orders. This sacred Council approves and confirms this legislation so far as it concerns those destined for the priesthood, and feels confident in the Spirit that the gift of celibacy, so appropriate to the priesthood of the New Testament, is liberally granted by the Father” (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, chap. 3, II, 16, p. 802).

COUNCIL OF TRENT REAFFIRMED

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT WAS A CATHOLIC COUNCIL HELD FROM 1545 TO 1563 IN AN ATTEMPT TO DESTROY THE PROGRESS OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION. THIS COUNCIL DENIED EVERY REFORMATION DOCTRINE, INCLUDING SCRIPTURE ALONE AND GRACE ALONE. TRENT HURLED 125 ANATHEMAS (ETERNAL DAMNATION) AGAINST BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIANS, INCLUDING THESE:

FOURTH SESSION: DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES: “If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts [the 66 books of the Bible plus 12 apocryphal books, being two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Sophonias, two of Macabees], as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.”

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: “If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: “If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: “If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Christ Jesus, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 33).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: “If anyone says that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on Baptism, Canon 3).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: “If anyone says that children, because they have not the act of believing, are not after having received baptism to be numbered among the faithful, and that for this reason are to be rebaptized when they have reached the years of discretion; or that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith of the Church alone, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on Baptism, Canon 13).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON CONFIRMATON: “If anyone says that the confirmation of those baptized is an empty ceremony and not a true and proper sacrament; or that of old it was nothing more than a sort of instruction, whereby those approaching adolescence gave an account of their faith to the Church, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on Confirmation, Canon 1).

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: “If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 1).

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: “If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only and not also sacramentally and really, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 8).

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: “If anyone says that in the Catholic Church penance is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord for reconciling the faithful of God as often as they fall into sin after baptism, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 1).

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: “If anyone denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law or is necessary to salvation; or says that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is at variance with the institution and command of Christ and is a human contrivance, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 7).

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: “If anyone says that the confession of all sins as it is observed in the Church is impossible and is a human tradition to be abolished by pious people; or that each and all of the faithful of Christ or either sex are not bound thereto once a year in accordance with the constitution of the great Lateran Council, and that for this reason the faithful of Christ are to be persuaded not to confess during Lent, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 8).

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: “If anyone says that God always pardons the whole penalty together with the guilt and that the satisfaction of penitents is nothing else than the faith by which they perceive that Christ has satisfied for them, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 8).

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: “If anyone says that in the Mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 1).

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: “If anyone says that by those words, Do this for a commemoration of me, Christ did not institute the Apostles priests; or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer His own body and blood, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 2).

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: “If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3).

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: “If anyone says that it is a deception to celebrate Masses in honor of the saints and in order to obtain their intercession with God, as the Church intends, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 5).

TWENTY-THIRD SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER: “If anyone says that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood, or that there is no power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord and of forgiving and retaining sins, but only the office and bare ministry of preaching the gospel; or that those who do not preach are not priests at all, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 1).

TWENTY-THIRD SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER: “If anyone says that the bishops who are chosen by the authority of the Roman pontiff are not true and legitimate bishops, but merely human deception, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 8).

TWENTY-FIFTH SESSION, DECREE ON PURGATORY: “Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, following the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught in sacred councils and very recently in this ecumenical council that there is a purgatory, and that the souls there detained are aided by the suffrages of the faithful and chiefly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar, the holy council commands the bishops that they strive diligently to the end that the sound doctrine of purgatory, transmitted by the Fathers and sacred councils, be believed and maintained by the faithful of Christ, and be everywhere taught and preached.”

TWENTY-FIFTH SESSION, ON THE INVOCATION, VENERATION, AND RELICS OF SAINTS, AND ON SACRED IMAGES: “The holy council commands all bishops and others who hold the office of teaching and have charge of the cura animarum, that in accordance with the usage of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive times of the Christian religion, and with the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers and the decrees of sacred councils, they above all instruct the faithful diligently in matters relating to intercession and invocation of the saints, the veneration of relics, and the legitimate use of images, teaching them that the saints who reign together with Christ offer up their prayers to God for men, that it is good and beneficial suppliantly to invoke them and to have recourse to their prayers, assistance and support in order to obtain favors from God through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our redeemer and savior; and that they think impiously who deny that the saints who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked, or who assert that they do not pray for men, or that our invocation of them to pray for each of us individually is idolatry, or that it is opposed to the word of God and inconsistent with the honor of the one mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ, or that it is foolish to pray vocally or mentally to those who reign in heaven.”

Pope Pius IV (1559-1565) issued a summary of the decisions of the council under the title “Pope Pius's Creed.” We will quote part of this creed, which has ever since been regarded as an authoritative summary of the Catholic faith:

“I profess also, that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the new law ...namely, baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, and that they confer grace. ... “I profess likewise, that in the Mass is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that, in the most holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ... “I constantly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. “Likewise, that the saints reigning together with Christ, are to be honoured and invocated; that they offer prayers to God for us; and that their relics are to be venerated. “I most firmly assert, that the images of Christ, and of the mother of God, ever virgin, and also of the other saints, are to be had and retained; and that one honour and veneration are to be given to them. “I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people. “I acknowledge the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman church, the mother and mistress of all churches. And I promise to swear true obedience to the Roman bishop, the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ. “I also profess, and undoubtedly receive all other things delivered, defined, and declared, by the sacred canons and general councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent. And likewise, I also condemn, reject, and anathematize, all things contrary thereto, and all heresies whatsoever condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the church. “This true Catholic faith, out of which none can be saved...” (Miller's Church History, pp.1081-1082).

These proclamations and anathemas [curses] were fleshed out in the murderous persecutions vented upon true Christians by Rome, and Trent has never been annulled. Vatican II referred to Trent dozens and dozens of times, quoted Trent's proclamations as authoritative, and reaffirmed Trent on every hand. The New Catholic Catechism cites Trent no less than 99 times. That is my own count. There is not the slightest hint that the proclamations of the Council of Trent have been abrogated by Rome. At the opening of the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII stated, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent.” Every Cardinal, Bishop and priest who became a member of the Council also signed that document (Wilson Ewin, You Can Lead Roman Catholics to Christ, Quebec Baptist Mission, 1990 edition, p. 41).

Consider a few examples of how Vatican II looked upon Trent: “The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent [remain] intact...” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, p. 37). “Therefore, following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of Vatican I, this present Council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine of divine revelation” (Constitution on Divine Revelation, p. 678). “[Christ] is substantially present there through that conversion of bread and wine which, as the Council of Trent tells us, is most aptly named transubstantiation” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, p. 110). “For under this form (leaving intact the principles of the Council of Trent, by which under either species or kind there is received the true sacrament and Christ whole and entire), the sign of the eucharistic banquet appears more perfectly” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, p. 124).

“The Roman Missal, promulgated by our predecessor St. Pius V in the Year of our Lord 1570 by decree of the Council of Trent, is universally acknowledged to be among the most useful of the many fruits which that Council brought forth for the good of the Church of Christ” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, p. 138). “When issuing decrees that the Order of the Mass should be revised, the Second Vatican Council ruled, among other things, that certain rites were to be restored to the vigour which they had in the days of the holy Fathers. These are the very words used by St. Pius V in his Apostolic Constitution Quo primum whereby he promulgated the Tridentine Missal of 1570 [Trent]. The employment of the very same words indicates that the two Missals, though separated in time by four centuries, are nevertheless inspired by and embody one and the same tradition. ... In those troubled days St. Pius V was unwilling to make any changes in the rites except minor ones; he was intent on preserving more recent tradition, because at that time attacks were being made on the doctrine that the Mass is a sacrifice present under the eucharistic species” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, p. 155).

“In this way the liturgical norms of the Council of Trent have in many respects been fulfilled and perfected by those of the Second Vatican Council” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, p. 159). “This sacred council accepts loyally the venerable faith of our ancestors in the living communion which exists between us and our brothers who are in the glory of heaven or who are yet being purified after their death; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, of the Council of Florence, and of the Council of Trent” (Constitution on the Church, p. 377). “The sacrament of baptism cannot be repeated ...and therefore to baptize again conditionally is not allowed unless there is prudent doubt of the fact, or of the validity, of a baptism already administered (Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4)” (Decree on Ecumenism, p. 445). “The Fathers of the Council, continuing the work begun by the Council of Trent, confidently entrust to superiors and professors in seminaries the duty of training Christ's future priests in the spirit of that renewal promoted by the Council itself” (Decree on the Training of Priests, p. 654).

HAS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THEN, CHANGED?

You have read for yourself the solemn proclamations of Rome's official Vatican II Council. These are proclamations made by the Pope and the college of bishops, and according to Catholic teaching, there is no higher authority than “the Church's dogma and interpretation of Scripture.” Of course, we realize there are Catholics do not believe these teachings, but where shall we go to find the official teachings of Catholicism? To the Vatican itself, of course. To say that the Vatican doesn't know Catholic doctrine is like saying Hitler didn't know Nazism.

Though some dramatic changes were made during and since the Vatican II Council, the Roman Catholic Church remains the same blasphemous, unscriptural institution it always has been. It is not possible to believe the previously quoted Vatican II pronouncements and think otherwise. Yet, the lie that Catholicism is becoming more evangelical, more biblical, and more spiritual continues to be propagated with blind perseverance. It is this lie that is being used to encourage the ecumenical fellowship between Catholics and Protestants. The same lie is a clever tool for persuading Catholics to stay in the Roman Church when they are converted or when they begin doubting Catholic doctrines.

Since it is plain that the Roman Catholic Church continues to uphold doctrines that are blasphemous and contrary to the Word of God, it is therefore inexcusable for Billy Graham and other evangelicals to affiliate with it or to speak of it in a positive fashion. The Word of God commands us to separate from those who teach error. “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Romans 16:17). “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Tim. 3:5). “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Cor.6:14). “Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:6-8). “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him” (2 Cor. 11:3-4).

Welcome to Holy Week, American style. Just as millions of Christians are preparing to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, the media is once again out to debunk historical Christianity.

Just last weekend I was in an airport bookstore and saw the new book counter filled with numerous editions of THE DA VINCI CODE. Then I picked up the NEW YORK TIMES, and there I was greeted with the headline on the front page that read, “In Ancient Document, Judas, Minus the Betrayal.”

You probably have seen the hype, including a one-hour NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TV spectacular: After seventeen hundred years, the story goes, the long-lost text of the so-called “Gospel of Judas” has re-surfaced. It claims that Jesus secretly told Judas to betray Him; so Judas is really a good disciple.

Well, it's not a new discovery. This “new gospel” and the heresy it espouses — Gnosticism — were rejected as fiction by Christian leaders and the Church as early as A.D. 180.

Gnosticism was an attempt to add to Christianity an essentially Eastern worldview dressed up with Christian language. It was presented to the Roman world as the true Gospel — complete with endless mysteries that only those with secret knowledge could unravel. Many unsuspecting people were enthralled with Gnostic writings, particularly their sometimes gory and salacious initiation ceremonies. Christian pastors and theologians repeatedly rejected all forms of Gnosticism, until, by the middle of the third century, it had all but disappeared.

But now it is back with a vengeance, with supposed discoveries and works like Dan Brown's THE DA VINCI CODE. It provides the means for Christianity's detractors to debunk the historical Jesus, and it certainly sells books. Seven million copies of THE DA VINCI CODE is testimony to that. Gnosticism has particular appeal today because of the postmodern age, which has rejected historical truth. So you can find God any way you wish, through your own group. This, of course, is the belief that is at the root of the spreading New Age movement.

The danger is that we have a biblically illiterate population. People today don't know — maybe don't care — whether there is a difference between the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of John. They are unfamiliar with the work of the ancient canonical councils of the Church (which rejected the Gnostic “gospels” time and again) or even of the basic creeds or confessions of the Christian Church. Sadly, people are as gullible today as ever.

Now it is tempting to get angry at NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC and the liberal press for unleashing this fraudulent “gospel” at the beginning of the holiest week of the year. But don't. Instead, let's use the media attention to debunk the debunkers, to point out to friends that this regurgitated Gnosticism — the DA VINCI CODE and the “gospel” of Judas included — is nothing more than historically unsupportable fantasy.

Then we can point them to the knowledge that is accessible to all people that has been accessible to Christians for two thousand years and proven historically accurate. It's called the Bible.

________

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[A proposed new atheistic theology by the notorious Episcopal Bishop Spong]

In the 16th century the Christian Church, which had been the source of much of the stability of the western world, entered a period of internal and violent upheaval.

In time this upheaval came to be called the Protestant Reformation, but during the violence itself, it was referred to by many less attractive adjectives. The institution that called itself the body of Christ broke first into debate, then acrimony, then violence and counter-violence and finally into open warfare between Protestant Christians and Catholic Christians. It produced the Hundred Years War and the conflict between England and Spain that came to a climax in the destruction of the Spanish Armada in 1588. That destruction was widely interpreted as a defeat for the Catholic God of Spain at the hands of the Protestant God of England.

Yet, when looking at that ecclesiastical conflict from the vantage point of more than four hundred years, there is surprise at how insignificant were the theological issues dividing the two sides. Neither side was debating such core teachings of Christianity as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, Jesus as the incarnate son of God, the reality of heaven and hell, the place of the cross in the plan of salvation or the role of such sacraments as Baptism and Communion. These rather were faith assertions held in common.

Of course this conflict was not without theological issues, though they seem quite trivial in retrospect. Protestant Christians and Catholic Christians disagreed, for example, about whether salvation was achieved by faith alone, as Luther contended, or whether faith without works was dead as the Vatican, quoting the Epistle of James, argued. There was also debate over the proper use of scripture and the role of ordination. Despite the hostile appellations of “heretic” hurled at Protestants and “anti-Christ” hurled at Catholics, anyone viewing this debate from the vantage point of this century would see that, while an acrimonious and unpleasant fight, it was nonetheless a fight that pitted Christian believers against Christian believers. The Reformation was not an attempt to reformulate the Christian faith for a new era. It was rather a battle over issues of Church order. The time had not arrived in which Christians would be required to rethink the basic and identifying marks of Christianity itself.

It is my conviction that such a moment is facing the Christian world today. The very heart and soul of Christianity will be the content of this reformation. The debate which has been building for centuries has now erupted into public view. All the past ecclesiastical efforts to keep it at bay or deny its reality have surely failed and will continue to do so. The need for a new theological reformation began when Copernicus and Galileo removed this planet from its previous supposed location at the center of the universe, where human life was thought to bask under the constant attention of a humanly defined parental deity. That revolution in thought produced an angle of vision radically different from the one in which the Bible was written and through which the primary theological tenets of the Christian faith were formed.

Before that opening salvo of revolution had been absorbed, Sir Isaac Newton, who charted the mathematically fixed physical laws of the universe, weighed into the debate. After Newton the Church found itself in a world in which the concepts of magic, miracle, and divine intervention as explanations of anything, could no longer be offered with intellectual integrity. Once more people were forced to enter into and to embrace a reality vastly different from the one employed in the traditional language of their faith tradition.

Next came Charles Darwin who related human life to the world of biology more significantly than anyone had heretofore imagined. He also confronted the human consciousness with concepts diametrically opposed to the traditional Christian world view. The Bible began with the assumption that God had created a finished and perfect world from which human beings had fallen away in an act of cosmic rebellion. Original sin was the reality in which all life was presumed to live. Darwin postulated instead an unfinished and thus imperfect creation out of which human life was still evolving. Human beings did not fall from perfection into sin as the Church had taught for centuries; we were evolving, and indeed are still evolving, into higher levels of consciousness. Thus the basic myth of Christianity that interpreted Jesus as a divine emissary who came to rescue the victims of the fall from the results of their original sin became inoperative. So did the interpretation of the cross of Calvary as the moment of divine sacrifice when the ransom for sin was paid. Established Christianity clearly wobbled under the impact of Darwin’s insights, but Christian leaders pretended that if Darwin could not be defeated, he could at least be ignored. It was a vain hope.

Darwin was followed by Sigmund Freud who analyzed the symbols of Christianity and found in them manifestations of a deep-seated infantile neurosis. The God understood as a father figure, who guided ultimate personal decisions, answered our prayers, and promised rewards and punishment based upon our behavior was not designed to call anyone into maturity. This view of God issued rather into either a religious mentality of passive dependency or an aggressive secular rejection of all things religious. After Freud, it was not surprising to see Christianity degenerate into an increasingly shrill biblical fundamentalism where thinking was not encouraged and preconceived pious answers were readily given, but where neither genuine questions nor maturity were allowed or encouraged. As Christianity moved more and more in this direction, contemporary people, who think with modern minds, began to be repelled and to drop out of their faith commitments into the Church Alumni Association. Between these two poles of mindless fundamentalism and empty secularism are found the mainline churches of Christendom, both Catholic and Protestant. They are declining numerically, seem lost theologically, are concerned more about unity than truth, and are wondering why boredom is what people experience inside church walls. The renewal of Christianity will not come from fundamentalism, secularism or the irrelevant mainline tradition. If there is nothing more than this on the horizon then I see no future for the enterprise we call the Christian faith.

My sense is that history has come to a point where only one thing will save this venerable faith tradition at this critical time in Christian history, and that is a new Reformation far more radical than Christianity has ever before known and that this Reformation must deal with the very substance of that faith. This Reformation will recognize that the pre-modern concepts in which Christianity has traditionally been carried will never again speak to the post-modern world we now inhabit. This Reformation will be about the very life and death of Christianity. Because it goes to the heart of how Christianity is to be understood, it will dwarf in intensity the Reformation of the 16th century. It will not be concerned about authority, ecclesiastical polity, valid ordinations and valid sacraments. It will be rather a Reformation that will examine the very nature of the Christian faith itself. It will ask whether or not this ancient religious system can be refocused and re-articulated so as to continue living in this increasingly non-religious world.

Martin Luther ignited the Reformation of the 16th century by nailing to the door of the church in Wittenberg in 1517 the 95 Theses that he wished to debate. I will publish this challenge to Christianity in The Voice. I will post my theses on the Internet and send copies with invitations to debate them to the recognized Christian leaders of the world. My theses are far smaller in number than were those of Martin Luther, but they are far more threatening theologically. The issues to which I now call the Christians of the world to debate are these:

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.

2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ’s divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.

5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.

6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.

7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.

8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.

9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.

10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.

11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.

12. All human beings bear God’s image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one’s being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

So I set these theses today before the Christian world and I stand ready to debate each of them as we prepare to enter the third millennium.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #20922]

In every generation, the church is commanded to “contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” That is no easy task, and it is complicated by the multiple attacks upon Christian truth that mark our contemporary age. Assaults upon the Christian faith are no longer directed only at isolated doctrines. The entire structure of Christian truth is now under attack by those who would subvert Christianity's theological integrity.

Today's Christian faces the daunting task of strategizing which Christian doctrines and theological issues are to be given highest priority in terms of our contemporary context. This applies both to the public defense of Christianity in face of the secular challenge and the internal responsibility of dealing with doctrinal disagreements. Neither is an easy task, but theological seriousness and maturity demand that we consider doctrinal issues in terms of their relative importance. God's truth is to be defended at every point and in every detail, but responsible Christians must determine which issues deserve first-rank attention in a time of theological crisis.

A trip to the local hospital emergency room some years ago alerted me to an intellectual tool that is most helpful in fulfilling our theological responsibility. In recent years, emergency medical personnel have practiced a discipline known as triage -- a process that allows trained personnel to make a quick evaluation of relative medical urgency. Given the chaos of an emergency room reception area, someone must be armed with the medical expertise to make an immediate determination of medical priority. Which patients should be rushed into surgery? Which patients can wait for a less urgent examination? Medical personnel cannot flinch from asking these questions, and from taking responsibility to give the patients with the most critical needs top priority in terms of treatment.

The word “triage” comes from the French word “trier,” which means “to sort.” Thus, the triage officer in the medical context is the front-line agent for deciding which patients need the most urgent treatment. Without such a process, the scraped knee would receive the same urgency of consideration as a gunshot wound to the chest. The same discipline that brings order to the hectic arena of the emergency room can also offer great assistance to Christians defending truth in the present age.

A discipline of theological triage would require Christians to determine a scale of theological urgency that would correspond to the medical world's framework for medical priority. With this in mind, I would suggest three different levels of theological urgency, each corresponding to a set of issues and theological priorities found in current doctrinal debates.

First-level theological issues would include those doctrines most central and essential to the Christian faith. Included among these most crucial doctrines would be doctrines such as the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith, and the authority of Scripture.

In the earliest centuries of the Christian movement, heretics directed their most dangerous attacks upon the church's understanding of who Jesus is and in what sense He is the very Son of God. Other crucial debates concerned the question of how the Son is related to the Father and the Holy Spirit. The earliest creeds and councils of the church were, in essence, emergency measures taken to protect the central core of Christian doctrine. At historic turning-points such as the councils at Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon, orthodoxy was vindicated and heresy was condemned -- and these councils dealt with doctrines of unquestionable first-order importance. Christianity stands or falls on the affirmation that Jesus Christ is fully man and fully God.

The church quickly moved to affirm that the full deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ are absolutely necessary to the Christian faith. Any denial of what has become known as Nicean-Chalcedonian Christology is, by definition, condemned as a heresy. The essential truths of the incarnation include the death, burial and bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who deny these revealed truths are, by definition, not Christians.

The same is true with the doctrine of the Trinity. The early church clarified and codified its understanding of the one true and living God by affirming the full deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit -- while insisting that the Bible reveals one God in three persons.

In addition to the Christological and Trinitarian doctrines, the doctrine of justification by faith must also be included among these first-order truths. Without this doctrine, we are left with a denial of the Gospel itself, and salvation is transformed into some structure of human righteousness. The truthfulness and authority of the Holy Scriptures must also rank as a first-order doctrine, for without an affirmation of the Bible as the very Word of God, we are left without any adequate authority for distinguishing truth from error.

These first-order doctrines represent the most fundamental truths of the Christian faith, and a denial of these doctrines represents nothing less than an eventual denial of Christianity itself.

The set of second-order doctrines is distinguished from the first-order set by the fact that believing Christians may disagree on the second-order issues, though this disagreement will create significant boundaries between believers. When Christians organize themselves into congregations and denominational forms, these boundaries become evident.

Second-order issues would include the meaning and mode of baptism. Baptists and Presbyterians, for example, fervently disagree over the most basic understanding of Christian baptism. The practice of infant baptism is inconceivable to the Baptist mind, while Presbyterians trace infant baptism to their most basic understanding of the covenant. Standing together on the first-order doctrines, Baptists and Presbyterians eagerly recognize each other as believing Christians, but recognize that disagreement on issues of this importance will prevent fellowship within the same congregation or denomination.

Christians across a vast denominational range can stand together on the first-order doctrines and recognize each other as authentic Christians, while understanding that the existence of second-order disagreements prevents the closeness of fellowship we would otherwise enjoy. A church either will recognize infant baptism, or it will not. That choice immediately creates a second-order conflict with those who take the other position by conviction.

In recent years, the issue of women serving as pastors has emerged as another second-order issue. Again, a church or denomination either will ordain women to the pastorate, or it will not. Second-order issues resist easy settlement by those who would prefer an either/or approach. Many of the most heated disagreements among serious believers take place at the second-order level, for these issues frame our understanding of the church and its ordering by the Word of God.

Third-order issues are doctrines over which Christians may disagree and remain in close fellowship, even within local congregations. I would put most of the debates over eschatology, for example, in this category. Christians who affirm the bodily, historical, and victorious return of the Lord Jesus Christ may differ over timetable and sequence without rupturing the fellowship of the church. Christians may find themselves in disagreement over any number of issues related to the interpretation of difficult texts or the understanding of matters of common disagreement. Nevertheless, standing together on issues of more urgent importance, believers are able to accept one another without compromise when third-order issues are in question.

A structure of theological triage does not imply that Christians may take any biblical truth with less than full seriousness. We are charged to embrace and to teach the comprehensive truthfulness of the Christian faith as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. There are no insignificant doctrines revealed in the Bible, but there is an essential foundation of truth that undergirds the entire system of biblical truth.

This structure of theological triage may also help to explain how confusion can often occur in the midst of doctrinal debate. If the relative urgency of these truths is not taken into account, the debate can quickly become unhelpful. The error of theological liberalism is evident in a basic disrespect for biblical authority and the church's treasury of truth. The mark of true liberalism is the refusal to admit that first-order theological issues even exist. Liberals treat first-order doctrines as if they were merely third-order in importance, and doctrinal ambiguity is the inevitable result.

Fundamentalism, on the other hand, tends toward the opposite error. The misjudgment of true fundamentalism is the belief that all disagreements concern first-order doctrines. Thus, third-order issues are raised to a first-order importance, and Christians are wrongly and harmfully divided.

Living in an age of widespread doctrinal denial and intense theological confusion, thinking Christians must rise to the challenge of Christian maturity, even in the midst of a theological emergency. We must sort the issues with a trained mind and a humble heart, in order to protect what the Apostle Paul called the “treasure” that has been entrusted to us. Given the urgency of this challenge, a lesson from the emergency room just might help.

In America’s celebrity-driven culture, perhaps the most harmful “Pied Piper” of heresies leading millions astray is Oprah Winfrey. Her adoption of anti-biblical doctrine is on display every day this year through her satellite radio network channel “Oprah & Friends.” It’s time for Christians to “just say no” to the big “O.”

In recent weeks, I have received multiple copies of the same e-mail warning Christians about Oprah Winfrey’s promotion of New Age teaching.

Oftentimes, broadcast e-mails are baseless and erroneous -- like the one that warns Madalyn Murray O’Hair is attempting to get the FCC to ban all Christian broadcasting. In spite of numerous repudiations of this bogus warning, the claim continues to float around the Internet.

Sometimes, however, e-mails turn out to be true and worthy of our attention. Such is the case with an e-mail currently in wide circulation concerning Oprah Winfrey’s promotion of A Course in Miracles (ACIM). After receiving multiple copies of the e-mail warning about this matter, I decided to check it out for myself.

Most of the e-mails about this include an article by Warren Smith, a former New Ager and student of ACIM, who devastatingly critiques this false teaching. His November 2007 article is online here: www.crossroad.to/articles2/007smith-oprah.htm. As I’m not familiar with Smith or this Web site, I cannot more broadly attest to him or the site. But concerning ACIM, his warnings are accurate and worth attention.

At the center of ACIM is megastar Oprah Winfrey -- perhaps the most well-known woman in the world. Winfrey’s media empire centers on her long-running and popular television talk show but also includes magazines, movies and her book club, and she is well-regarded for her many philanthropic efforts. Unfortunately, too few understand Winfrey’s devotion to unbiblical teachings, especially the New Age Movement.

Cky Carrigan, an evangelism professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in a helpful article, “How to Evangelize New-Agers” (http://www.ontruth.com/newage.htm), notes Winfrey is the “most influential preacher of New Age ideas,” winning “converts every day in staggering numbers -- many from Baptist churches.”

Carrigan quotes Oprah’s view of Jesus from one of her programs:

Oprah: “There are many paths to what you call God.”

Audience Member: “There is one way and only one way and that is through Jesus.”

Oprah: “There couldn’t possibly be just one way!”

What is the New Age Movement? Carrigan writes: “The New Age Movement is an American and European form of ancient eastern religious beliefs (Hinduism and Buddhism), combined with divination, earth-based religions, self-help theory, alternative healing techniques, astrology and other non-Christian religious practices. Therefore, the New Age Movement is not really new at all, though it is new to America.”

Although New Agers rely upon many sources, ACIM is among the most popular. New Age guru Marianne Williamson is responsible for popularizing the work through her book, “A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of A Course in Miracles,” while Oprah is to be credited with launching Williamson’s career through her appearances on Winfrey’s talk show.

And now, Williamson is one of the featured stars on the “Oprah & Friends” channel on XM Satellite Radio, reprising her role as advocate of ACIM through a year-long series on the course.

ACIM, however, was not written by Williamson, but by a tag-team of psychologists from Columbia University in New York, Helen Schucman and William Thetford. Schucman, on the ACIM Web site, defers credit for the work, which she merely “scribed.” An “inner voice,” she says was Jesus, told her, “This is a course in miracles. Please take notes.”

From 1965 to 1972, Schuman experienced “Jesus’” voice through “inner dictation.” Thetford joined Schucman in scribing the voice, resulting in ACIM.

Thetford defined the purpose of ACIM as: “To help us change our minds about who we are and what God is, and to help us let go, through forgiveness, our belief in the reality of our separation from God. Learning how to forgive ourselves and others is really the fundamental teaching of the Course. The Course teaches us how to know ourselves and how to unlearn all of those things which interfere with our recognition of who we are and always have been.”

As would be expected from this definition, ACIM is full of heresy, often wrapped in confusing, contradictory, nonsensical rhetoric. Sometimes, however, ACIM is blatantly clear in its false doctrine. And, since Jesus was supposedly the voice heard by Schucman, these assertions are especially outrageous.

For example, Lesson 70, headlined: “My salvation comes from me,” opens with this comment: “All temptation is nothing more than some form of the basic temptation not to believe the idea for today. Salvation seems to come from anywhere except from you. So, too, does the source of guilt. You see neither guilt nor salvation as in your own mind and nowhere else. When you realize that all guilt is solely an invention of your mind, you also realize that guilt and salvation must be in the same place. In understanding this you are saved.”

Contrary to the Bible’s clear teaching that our guilt is the result of the fact that we truly are sinners, separated from God by our sin, and rightfully under God’s judgment for our sin, ACIM teaches that we must realize “all guilt is solely an invention of your mind” and in this realization is salvation.

Warren Smith has helpfully summarized some of the other false doctrine of the course in the previously referenced article:

• “There is no sin.”

• “Do not make the pathetic error of ‘clinging to the old rugged cross.’”

• “The name of Jesus Christ as such is but a symbol.... It is a symbol that is safely used as a replacement for the many names of all the gods to which you pray.”

• “God is in everything I see.”

ACIM is in wide use, even at the grassroots level in local churches. I came across a promotion of ACIM in the Lufkin (Texas) Daily News Feb. 29 for Unity Church of Christianity which offers the course, noting the “class is designed to teach people how to apply spiritual principles in their daily lives. No experience is necessary, just an open heart and an accepting mind.”

Such is the result of Oprah’s promotion of ACIM. Winfrey’s influence is vast. Tragically, far too many Christians -- including many who would consider themselves conservative, Bible-believing evangelicals -- are more likely to take their theological cues from Oprah than they are from their faithful pastors.

These Christians need to pattern their lives after those of the Bereans who “received the Word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether” what they were being taught was true (Acts 17:11). Because they were rightly concerned with testing what they were taught according to the Scriptures, the Bereans were not likely to fall prey to false teachers.

The Apostle Peter describes the challenge of false teachers and how believers should respond to them in his second letter (2 Peter 2:1-22). He warns against “false teachers ... who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them ...” (v.1). He says “many” believers will be beguiled by the false teachers’ “sensuality,” resulting in the maligning of the truth (v.2). These false teachers are “springs without water and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved” (v. 17).

Peter’s warnings are clearly applicable to Oprah, Williamson and A Course in Miracles for undermining the faith with a false gospel and counterfeit “Jesus,” which in the end bring no actual spiritual nourishment or relief. Tragically, these teachers are leading people straight to hell.

Christians should flee from Oprah and her cohorts and recommit themselves to careful Bible study, in the context of a local body of believers with whom they have covenanted for mutual edification and accountability, led by a faithful pastor.

Of course, this isn’t as glamorous as Oprah -- but neither is eternal punishment in hell.

If I may botch the words of Benjamin Franklin, “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes and Christians fighting over doctrine.”

Until the Lord returns, theological disagreement is an inevitability, even among evangelical Christians who affirm the same Gospel and appeal to the same inerrant authority in Scripture. Christians who disagree over doctrine do so because they are imperfect interpreters who have different interpretations of Scripture, ways of reasoning, feelings and biases. As our 175-year history bears witness, Southern Baptists are not immune to these kinds of intramural disputes.

Yet not every theological disagreement is a “false teaching” in the biblical sense, nor is everyone who disagrees with our interpretation on a doctrinal matter a “false teacher.” In the New Testament, the term “false teacher” has a connotation more specific than someone who is factually incorrect in a belief or doctrine. It speaks more about the character of the teacher than the teaching itself. “False doctrine” is not a mere disagreement about the meaning of a biblical text.

First, false teaching deceives the spiritually immature. Those who are like “little children, tossed by the waves and blown around by every wind of teaching” (Ephesians 4:14) are most susceptible to “turning away from ... the grace of Christ ... to a different gospel” (Galatians 1:6), “another Jesus” and a “different spirit” (2 Corinthians 11:4). Notice the benchmarks for false doctrine here are a “different gospel” and “another Jesus.”

Second, Peter associates false teaching with “untaught and unstable” individuals who distort the meaning of every Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). He contrasts this “unstable” personality with those who are “established in the truth” (2 Peter 1:12).

Third, biblically speaking, false teachers are more than men or women teaching mistaken ideas. They also have fatal character flaws like ungodly ambition, foolishness, greed and arrogance. According to Paul, the one who teaches false doctrine is “conceited and understands nothing.” Like many of the keyboard warriors ready to pounce on anyone who disagrees with them, the false teacher has an “unhealthy interest in disputes and arguments over words.” Their comments provoke “envy, quarreling, slander, evil suspicions and constant disagreement.” (1 Timothy 6:4–5).

Fourth, false teachers see their so-called ministries as “a way to material gain” (1 Tim. 6:5). Like modern televangelists dissatisfied with their multimillion-dollar jets, the false teachers and prophets confronted by the apostles would “market the word of God for profit” (2 Corinthians 2:17). These false teachers “exploit you in their greed with made-up stories” (2 Peter 2:3).

Fifth, false teaching can stem from and result in sexual sin. Peter warns of “destructive heresies” which lead many to “follow their depraved ways” (2 Peter 2:1–2). Jesus warns the churches in Revelation of deceptive teaching that leads to sexual immorality (Revelation 2:14, 20). Those who endorse sexual behaviors contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture are properly called “false teachers.”

Sixth, biblical authors occasionally attribute false teaching to spiritual warfare, “to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons” (1 Timothy 4:1, Galatians 1:8). Even people who are “spiritual” in their teachings may not be under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

But how do we know when a teacher is under the work of a demonic spirit? John gave a simple litmus test for churches battling heresy: “Every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God” (1 John 4:3). Paul adds, “No one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:3). Biblically speaking, anyone who denies the true divinity or true humanity of Christ is a false teacher under spiritual deception.

Finally, false teaching comes from “false brothers” who infiltrate our ranks (Galatians 2:4). From this final characteristic, we must make an important clarification: someone who is a false teacher cannot be a true brother or sister in Christ. False teachers deny “the Master who bought them” (2 Peter 2:1), evidence gross sin in their behavior and dealings with others and are characterized by immorality and wickedness.

For these reasons, we must be slow to label the theological disagreements we have with others “false teaching” and especially cautious about labeling other men and women “false teachers.” Grace and patience must characterize our theological conflicts, especially those which do not rise to these extremes.

________

Rhyne Putman is associate professor of theology and culture at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, pastor of preaching and vision at First Baptist Church in Kenner, La., and the author of When Doctrine Divides the People of God: An Evangelical Approach to Theological Diversity (Crossway, 2020). [Collapse Bio]