Update: Dear Catholic friends visiting the blog, please read the follow-up post to this article titled “Dear Catholics of 40 Days for Life“.
2012 has been a year of firsts for my wife and I with regards to pro-life mission work. We have had the privilege to minister at two different abortion clinics in Charlotte, NC, and have spoken to abortive mothers, fathers, abortion mill staff, as well as distribute pro-life materials, Gospel tracts, pray for the unborn and their parents, and preach the Gospel in the open air. Cities4Life has been instrumental in encouraging us to get into pro-life Gospel ministry, and I am thankful for the upcoming opportunity to present at the next Cities4Life Frontline Training Session on May 11 (please join us!). While my experience in pro-life Gospel ministry has been extremely fulfilling, it has not come without a stark realization of the further slide of evangelicalism into ecumenical compromise.
I am relatively new to the pro-life “movement” and was somewhat aware of there being so few Gospel-centered pro-life ministries and causes. My understanding was that most organizations are first concerned with saving the lives of the unborn, and if there was any concern for an abortive parent’s soul, this was a secondary issue. I was then elated to learn of Cities4Life and their Christ-centered, Gospel-centered (thus biblical) approach to combating abortion (read about that here). However, in hitting the sidewalks over the last few months, I have become keenly aware of another organization that is hardly Gospel-centered – 40 Days for Life. What we witnessed during our outreach on March 31, 2012 is what compelled me to write this article, which will be explained later in the post.
Before I continue, I understand some (hopefully many) of the readers of this post are evangelical Christians heavily involved with 40 Days for Life. I have personally met some of you and want you to know this article is not a personal attack against you. It saddens me to find it necessary to write such a piece, but out of love for the truth, love for the Body of Christ, and love for deceived, lost souls, write it I must. This article, then, is an open letter of sorts to evangelical Christians who are associated with 40 Days for Life, that they may understand the dangers in yoking with such ecumenical organizations at the expense of Gospel purity (go here to better understand what ecumenism is and how it is unbiblical).
40 Days for Life
February 22 – April 1, 2012 marked the organized, semi-annual abortion outreach for 40 Days for Life. One might recognize that “40 days” coincides with the Roman Catholic Lenten season. The 40 Days for Life Campaign page states:
40 Days for Life takes a determined, peaceful approach to showing local communities the consequences of abortion in their own neighborhoods, for their own friends and families. It puts into action a desire to cooperate with God in the carrying out of His plan for the end of abortion in America.
Participants meet their goal by prayer and fasting, constant vigils at abortion clinics, and community outreach. Finally, the vision and mission of 40 Days for Life as found on the Campaign page is
to bring together the body of Christ in a spirit of unity during a focused 40 day campaign of prayer, fasting, and peaceful activism, with the purpose of repentance, to seek God’s favor to turn hearts and minds from a culture of death to a culture of life, thus bringing an end to abortion in America.
Of course, if one reads the above at face value, there is nothing inherently wrong with the stated objective. Christians should pray and fast, we should maintain a [Gospel] presence at abortion clinics, and we should seek to educate the community on the evils of abortion. However, the danger is not in what has been said, but in who has said it.
While I was familiar with 40 Days for Life being at least a Roman Catholic friendly organization, I was not aware of how ecumenical and Catholic-rooted it is until researching it over the weekend. Take for instance the 40 Days for Life series for daily devotionals. Each devotional is written by various people representing different pro-life organizations including Priests for Life (Catholic), the National Pro-Life Religious Council (ecumenical), the National Clergy Council (ecumenical), Rachel’s Vineyard (Catholic), United Friends for Life (of the gay-affirming United Church of Christ), among others including Presbyterian, Charismatic-Episcopal, United Methodist Church, Anglican, Orthodox Church, and Lutheran organizations. What’s more, a list of Catholic prayers and vigils can be found on the Prayers page of the 40 Days for Life Charlotte chapter. As if this is not enough evidence of the ecumenical and Roman Catholic foundation of 40 Days for Life, one can Google the keywords “40 Days for Life Catholic” to see pages upon pages of Catholic associations with 40 Days for Life.
With this foundation laid, let’s look into why it is so problematic for Christians to be involved with 40 Days for Life. While the efforts of 40 Days for Life and the associated organizations are noble in saving the lives of the unborn, none of these organizations are built on the foundation of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is much “God-speak” mentioned throughout the websites of these organizations, but nowhere will one find any mention or definition of the Gospel. What’s more, because there is no clear Gospel distinctive offered by any of these organizations, each can confess and promote unity in the church as if biblical Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church, other apostate church denominations, and the Church of Latter Day Saints (yes, even Mormons) are all part of Body of Christ.
We’ve Seen This Before
I am reminded of the controversial (and ecumenical) Manhattan Declaration from 2009 where the Gospel was compromised for the sake of “church unity” in fighting the culture’s social woes. In his refusal to sign the Declaration, John MacArthur resolutely explains why in the following excerpts from his November 24, 2009 post:
Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.
MacArthur continues:
Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.
MacArthur concludes:
In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.
If given the opportunity, I am confident Dr. MacArthur would take the same position with regards to born again believers participating in the ecumenical 40 Days for Life organization, or any other pro-life organization that seeks common ground in Christendom and relegates the Gospel to a secondary issue, if it is indeed an issue at all.
So why is it that even mainline Protestant ministries are yoking with Rome? Why are Christian leaders and ministries like Southern Evangelical Seminary, Mark Harris – pastor of First Baptist Church of Charlotte and President of the NC Baptist Convention, and apologist Frank Turek endorsing 40 Days for Life (source)? [Edit: A representative from Southern Evangelical Seminary contacted me on 4/10/12 to inform me that they have severed ties with 40 Days for Life (before
the publishing of this article) based on information learned about the practices that took place at A Preferred Women’s Health Center on March 31, 2012 (see photos included in this article). The representative informed me the actions of the Catholic group on March 31 was a violation of the 40 Days for Life bylaws. The representative asked for the information about SES be removed from the blog article. I have decided to retain the information on the blog for informational purposes, but I acknowledge and appreciate SES’s decision to cut ties with 40 Days for Life. This does not, however, answer the question as to why SES was involved with this ecumenical organization in the first place. See image to the right for the Sanctity of Life flyer].
Why do so many conservative churches in Charlotte participate in 40 Days for Life, in lock-step with over two dozen Roman Catholic churches and organizations? At best, the leadership of some of these churches are unaware their church name is listed as participating; at worst, they have knowingly and willingly joined hands with Rome and compromise the integrity of their church foundation and the Gospel. If the latter is the case, it is consistent with evangelicalism’s counter-reformation in her remarriage to the apostate Roman Catholic Church and it is consistent with the “Deeds not Creeds” dogma (which is a creed itself, by the way) pushed by the likes of Rick Warren. Regardless of the goal to end abortion, the ends does not justify the means. If the Gospel must be pushed aside for the sake of unity, then there can be no unity!
The Dangers of Ecumenical Compromise
With this in mind, what is the outflow of this ecumenical compromise? What are the dangers in yoking with organizations who hate the Gospel of our Lord? The following three reasons should shed light on the seriousness of Christians participating in ecumenical organizations regardless of the moral battles being fought:
This idolatrous sign was displayed by 40 Days for Life at A Preferred Women's Health Center on March 31, 2012
Danger 1: It is sin.
The Bible explicitly commands the Christian and the non-Christian to have no spiritual relationship:
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? – 2 Corinthians 6:14-16
What does it mean to be “unequally yoked”? Paul has in mind the yoke that binds two oxen together to pull a load. If one ox is stronger or taller than its companion ox, the work will not be equally distributed resulting in the pair to walk in circles. The task they have been given to do cannot be completed as the two oxen are at odds with one another. The same can be said of a believer and nonbeliever yoking themselves together in a spiritual relationship.
When the Christian enters into such a relationship with a nonbeliever, it is the Christian who compromises their principles. We often see this when Christians enter into worldly relationships with the opposite sex, and it is clear this is the case when Christian organizations and churches enter into ministry relationships with Belial (worthless religions and cults controlled by the god of this world – Satan). Looking at 40 Days for Life and the Manhattan Declaration, the compromise is apparent – any Gospel distinctive is woefully absent. This is a partnership between righteousness and lawlessness, light and darkness, and believers and nonbelievers, and God commands us not to do it. When we do, we sin.
Beloved, when you join Catholics in prayer, you are not equally yoked because God does not hear the prayers of Catholics who do not believe in the sufficiency of the blood of Jesus Christ to completely atone for one’s sins. When you join Catholics in proclaiming the mercies of God, you are not equally yoked because there is no mercy for those who deny justification by faith alone. When you join Catholics in sharing the message of hope and healing, you are not equally yoked because unless one is born again of the Spirit by grace alone, then there can be no hope or healing. Can you see how very much unequally yoked you are when you join Catholics in the pro-life movement? Can you see the sinfulness in doing so?
Idol worship at A Preferred Women's Health Center on March 31, 2012
Danger 2: It affirms the deceived in their unbelief
One of the worst consequences for when Christians yoke themselves with nonbelievers is that it affirms the lost in their unbelief. Contrary to the postmodern trend that teaches the Roman Catholic Church is part of the Body of Christ, devout Catholics are not Christians. The Christian should know better, and if any Christian reading this post was unaware of this for any reason, let me be clear: Catholics are not born again, which means they are still dead in their sins and on their way to hell. One of the most unloving thing a Christian can do is to affirm a Catholic, or any member of any religious cult, and allow them to remain comfortable in their idolatry.
What took place at the Latrobe abortion mill on March 31st was heartbreaking and revolting. On the one hand, I was saddened by the blindness in the Catholics’ idolatrous worship as they chanted in unison to Mary, prayed the Rosary, and touched, kissed, and bowed down before the 6 x 3 foot portrait of the “Lady of Guadalupe”. On the other hand, I was furious with the blatant idolatry taking place in public. Nevertheless, these pitiful souls are deceived and need the Gospel of Jesus Christ just as much as those entering the slaughterhouse to murder their babies. By yoking oneself to 40 Days for Life and joining hands on the sidewalk as they practice their vain prayers, one is affirming the idol worshiper in their false religion.
I do appreciate the sincere efforts of Catholics who are out on the sidewalks praying for abortion to end. Frankly, my understanding is there are more Catholics in the pro-life movement than there are Christians – I say this to our shame. Their mere presence on the sidewalk add to the numbers of pro-lifers in front of abortion mills, which does play a role to change the minds of abortive parents (sometimes not even pulling into the abortion mill parking lot). I also am grateful for the opportunity to be able to preach the Gospel in the presence of Catholics as they are not beyond the Holy Spirit’s reach. Nevertheless, yoking ourselves with Catholics is harmful to their soul.
Danger 3: It supplements a stumbling block for abortive parents and abortion mill staff
Ironically, phrases like “40 Days for Life” or any “pro-life ministry” that is absent the Gospel at its core is not about Life at all. Yes, there may be babies saved, but in the end, what have we gained if mothers, fathers, babies, and pro-abortionists still go to hell when we could have given them the message of Life and Hope?
This is not to say, at all, that all evangelical Christians participating in 40 Days for Life do not share the unadulterated Gospel of Jesus Christ with parents who decide to keep their babies. I trust many do. But what of the mothers and fathers who keep their babies who end up speaking with a Catholic, a Mormon, or any other religious cult member? Has your participation and endorsement of 40 Days for Life not played a role in deceiving more souls looking for answers to life’s difficulties, only to be persuaded to believe in a false hope? A mother who keeps her baby may hear the Gospel from you, Christian, but what of her speaking to a Catholic or Mormon? I assure you, they will not be hearing the same message and this has eternal consequences.
Moving Forward with the Gospel
My dear friends, abortion is a Gospel issue and we must not set it aside for the sake of unity on social issues. Just a few weeks ago I was told it does not matter who gets on the microphone to preach as long as their message is pro-life – that it does not matter whether one is Christian, Catholic, Mormon, or Atheist as long as they stand with us on the sidewalk. My friends, this is a lie from the pit of hell. Do not be deceived – it is uncharitable to have as one’s first task to save a baby’s life, then later potentially share the Gospel with the parent(s) who choose life. What happens if they go through with the abortion? What happens if they keep their baby but there is no follow-up with you, or they follow up with someone who is still lost themselves?
The reason why we must preach the Gospel first and foremost, whether in the open air or one-to-one, is because Jesus is worthy of our public adoration, our public worship, and our public testimony of the Gospel of Grace. Our King is worthy for us to be obedient to the Great Commission, regardless of whether anyone is saved. We preach Christ and Him crucified for the glory of God alone because we love the Lamb above anyone or anything else.
The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe (Romans 1:16). Preaching the Gospel is essential, for if there is no Gospel, there is no power to change the heart. If they are not born again, they will kill again. When we preach the Gospel unashamedly, we trust the seeds sown will take root on fertile hearts, and whether or not a woman chooses to murder her baby on that day, the seeds of the Gospel have gone forth and God may yet water them days, weeks, months, or years later. Front and center of any pro-life ministry must be the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We must begin with Jesus for in Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3).
So here’s a question for you: what or who do you value more? Christ, or the lives of the unborn? Has your love for the voiceless surpassed your love for Jesus? Has your zeal to fight and end abortion surpassed your zeal for the Gospel? Do you yet understand that God is sovereign and He has called you to “be ye separate” (2 Corinthians 6:17), even if that means forsaking your participation in a massive pro-life organization?
Beloved, God is sovereign, and He commands your loyalty as an ambassador for Christ. I am with you in your zeal for the unborn, but we do not need to compromise our biblical principles and the Gospel to be zealous for this good work (Titus 2:14). God has not called you to save babies, dear brother or sister; He has called you to be a faithful minister of the Gospel and that by doing so you might play a role in saving babies. See the difference?
In as much Christian love as I can muster, my call to you is one of repentance. I call you to come out from among these organizations that are in bed with the mother of all harlots, namely the Roman Catholic Church (Revelation 17). In doing so, I encourage you to use this opportunity to join Gospel-centered pro-life ministries. We need your compassion and we need your zeal! This would also be an opportune time for you to write your friends and family who may be Catholic participants in 40 Days for Life and share the pure Gospel of Christ with them. Perhaps you have wanted to do so for some time, but your pro-life commonality has gotten in the way and you have feared losing friendships and resources. Are the souls of these individuals not more important than the potential babies you might save together? Might you explain to them why you are leaving 40 Days for Life and speak the truth to them in love that they might come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ?
I pray you consider the aforementioned concerns of weighty significance, and you will do your prayerful diligence to the Lord to respond biblically. I pray you listen to the voice of your Good Shepherd and continue to follow Him down the costly, narrow way.
In our fight for life, let us be truly pro-Life and not forsake the Life-giving power of the Gospel. Soli Deo Gloria!
Recommended Resources:
airō 
David Day
April 10, 2012
So glad you wrote this. I have been sidewalk counseling at the clinics in Montgomery for a few years. There are many Catholics who come out. I have often pondered about being along side them there. I try to use the opportunity to witness to them as I witness to those seeking an abortion. Also..Indeed Abortion is a gospel issue. You could not have said it better. There are there because they are sinners in need the gospel.. Thank you..
Justin Edwards
April 10, 2012
Thank you for your kind words, brother David. Praise the Lord for the response the article has received thus far and the clarity it provides for our brothers and sisters in pro-life ministry. You are correct – Catholics fighting for life need the Gospel as much as those who are there to kill their babies. When they show up at abortion mills, we have a blessed opportunity to preach the Gospel to more souls.
Marty
April 10, 2012
This is just sad…the Catholic Church is the original Christian Church spoken of in the book of Acts. You speak of it as if we don’t know who Jesus is or we don’t hear the Gospel each week in Mass. Oh, but wait…don’t we “worship” Mary? Don’t we pray to statues and sacrifice our first born children in honor of the Pope? Please… Everything you think you understand about the Catholic Church is false…it’s anti-Catholic myths and ghost stories.
The Catholic Church is the oldest and largest Christian church in the world. You don’t see it because you’re in America…the land of “have it your way” Burger King churches.
You don’t need to “witness” to Catholics…you need to understand that we’re the ones trying to show the truth to you!
Justin Edwards
April 10, 2012
Thanks for stopping by, Marty. This reply serves as an acknowledgment to your 3 comments, but I will only be publishing this one as I do not care to get into a straw man debate with you, or give you a platform from which to spread heresy. You are more than welcome to visit my Catholic page if you wish to objectively examine the eternal differences between biblical Christianity and Roman Catholicism.
I pray looking through these resources will lead you to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to forgive your sins and who alone is our Mediator and High Priest to the Father. May the Holy Spirit, who alone bears the name of Comforter, guide you in your understanding and give you a new heart that you would repent and trust in Jesus alone for eternal life.
Michael Coughlin
April 10, 2012
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this.
Justin Edwards
April 10, 2012
Welcome, welcome, welcome brother. 🙂
DMG
April 10, 2012
Great article.. thank you!!
Justin Edwards
April 10, 2012
You’re quite welcome, sis. Thank you for reading it. 🙂
Ed
April 10, 2012
Awesome post bro.
Justin Edwards
April 10, 2012
Thank you, brother Ed. SDG!
Doug Beaumont
April 10, 2012
This post reflects both zeal and, unfortunately, ignorance. For one, the fact that 40 Days for Life is Catholic-friendly might have to do with the fact that while Catholicism never wavered in its concern for protection of life, it took Protestants quite some time to catch up. Those late to the party should not complain about how it’s going.
Second, your citation of 2 Corinthians 6 is off-base. The text itself answers your question – we are to not be yoked to unbelievers – specifically in their worship. But this is not a worship issue, and Catholics are not unbelievers. The gospel is in Paul’s previous writing (1 Cor. 15) and Catholics believe that. The fact that they do not hold to your understanding of justification does not disqualify them from salvation. And even if it did, your conclusion that it is sinful to stand with them on this issue does not follow. If you saw someone drowning, would you refuse a Catholic Lifeguard’s help because he has a different understanding of justification than you? I would hope that answering “Yes” is absurd enough to not require commentary, and it is analogous to the rest of your article.
Third, veneration of Mary is not idolatry, and the rosary is hardly idolatrous. The prayers in the Rosary are, to a great extent, simply made up of passages from the Bible or orthodox creedal statements. Yes, there are a few phrases that someone unfamiliar with various theologies concerning Mary and Revelation would miss, but they are there. And while supplications for prayer from saints in heaven is often, unfortunately, referred to as prayer “to” them, asking others for prayer is hardly worshiping idols. Further, Catholic dogma does not allow for worship of any person outside of the Divine Trinity. While the worship/veneration distinction (which reflects the 7th Ecumenical Council) may be lost on many, it is there and it is important. It is slander, therefore, to accuse Catholics of idolatry unless you can confirm that this is actually what they are doing.
Your “third danger” is something that virtually ANY action could be accused of, and misses the important point that a person must be alive in the first place in order to be evangelized. When faced with imminent murder, keeping the victim alive is, therefore, paramount. God is, I am quite confident, able to reach anyone saved at an abortion clinic, even if they don’t get “The Roman’s Road” in the same instant.
A more real danger for evangelization is, I think, the failure of Christians to live up to Jesus’ final prayer for unity. Certainly we need to divide (ecclesiastically) over those things which keep one from orthodox doctrine – but we need to do so in a non-question-begging manner, and in one that does not illicitly spill over into non-ecclesiastical separation from a unified good.
Justin Edwards
April 10, 2012
Hi Doug, thanks for stopping by. As an assistant professor from SES, I would have expected you to be more aligned with orthodox Christianity. I trust your position is personal to you and does not reflect the position of SES. Frankly, you have proven my point regarding evangelicalism’s slide back into Rome. I do not see the virtue in debating you on the errors in your comment with regards to Roman Catholicism’s anathema gospel, but suffice it to say the Reformers of the Protestant Reformation would vehemently disagree with you. You are outside Christian orthodoxy if you believe one’s view of justification does not matter in the doctrine of salvation. A rejection of Sola fide is a rejection of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. I encourage the reader, whomever it is, to consider the page I offered in the article: Biblical Christianity versus Roman Catholicism.
The issue is not whether we should have any contact with unbelievers, or even serve alongside of them in various causes. The issue for the Christian in ministry is to not yoke themselves to nonbelievers under the banner of the Gospel. I will refer you back to John MacArthur’s position.
Regarding prayers to Mary, I refer the reader to the following:
Praying to the Dead
Praying to saints and Mary
Worshiping saints and Mary
Regarding your criticism of the “third danger”, I think the post was pretty clear. The Christian’s first allegiance is to the Gospel. This does not mean any activity must first be introduced by a Gospel presentation, but the context of all of our good works must be in the framework of the Gospel, trusting the Lord will open up the doors for the Gospel to be sown according to His will. This does not, however, give us the option to blatantly set the Gospel aside as a secondary or non-issue so that we can increase our numbers in ministry or philanthropical endeavors.
Justin Edwards
April 10, 2012
Doug, you might find the following helpful in your dissertation on justification from my good friend, Ken Silva: http://apprising.org/2008/09/02/has-the-roman-catholic-church-really-changed/
B
April 10, 2012
I’d like you to expound on your claim that “catholics are not born again which means they are still dead in their sins…” Is the claim that no catholics are born again? or most catholics are not born again? Whatever your claim, please give your argument.
Justin Edwards
April 10, 2012
Hi B, thanks for the comment. One cannot be Catholic and also be born again in so much as “Catholic” means to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church and submitted to its unbiblical traditions concerning the Mass and sacraments. If one is born again, they have been saved by the grace of God, repented from sin (including self-righteousness and good works), and put their complete trust and faith in Jesus Christ alone for the forgiveness of their sins. In other words, by God’s grace alone, the born again believer is saved by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. He believes all of his sins are forgiven based on the merit of the Lord Jesus Christ’s work on the cross and the sufficiency of the blood to cover their sins. They believe the work is finished, and there is no longer any sacrifice for sins (Hebrews 8-10). When a Catholic is born again and believes these things, they are no longer Catholic, and the Holy Spirit will eventually draw them out of the Roman Catholic Church.
Rose Vosburgh
April 10, 2012
“When a Catholic is born again and believes these things, they are no longer Catholic, and the Holy Spirit will eventually draw them out of the Roman Catholic Church.”
Absolutely right! That is exactly what happened to me. I was a very commited Catholic for many years. When the Lord miraculously saved me, I knew I had been set free. We are saved and justified by faith alone, through Christ alone, by grace alone, by Scripture alone (not church tradition or the Pope), to the glory of God alone…what I now know to be the five solas of the Reformation. As a Catholic, it was a works-righteousness system all the way.I was working very hard to earn my way to heaven with Jesus (and devotion to Mary) tacked on. Works plus Jesus. That is a false gospel. I was very religious, but I did not have the Savior, though I thought I did. I would have died in my sins and gone to hell. I am so thankful to God for calling me out from that apostate system. Catholics are very devout, faithful activistics for life, and they do have some things right like the Trinity. But regarding the means of salvation (and what could be more important than that!), they are wrong if they are trusting in anything or anyone but Jesus Christ.
Regarding 40 Days for Life, I have been following it for several years and I have noticed the Catholic devotionals and strong Catholic presence. Still, I felt that I could participate as long as I did not join in verbally praying with Catholics. So last Fall I participated for the first time driving an hour once a week to pray outside an abortion clinic. I wanted to finally DO something and this campaign gave me an opportunity. I do agree with your analysis of it though. Saving lives is a worthwhile cause, but saving souls is even more urgent especially as we see that Day approaching. You have given me much to chew over. Thank you for addressing this topic.
Justin Edwards
April 11, 2012
Hi Rose, thank you so much for sharing your testimony and testifying to God’s grace in how He saved you from your sins and out of the RCC. I’m thankful the article gave you something to consider and trust the Lord will guide you as you continue to seek His face in prayer in study.
Brendon Helms
April 10, 2012
It seems that your underlying problem is that 40 Days for Life does view presenting the gospel as goal number one while ministering at abortion clinics. I am personally not involve with 40 Days for Life so I am not in a position to dispute that and I would venture to say you are probably correct in that assessment. That being said it seems that the number one goal of your blog was not to present the gospel. Does that mean that we should discount this blog a priori? Now you could argue that the primary purpose of this blog entry was to instruct others on how to properly minister at an abortion clinic. However, if you make that argument you seem to undermine your original argument that 40 Days for Life and all individuals and groups associated with it need to repent because presenting the gospel is not their primary purpose. You cannot have it both ways. Either you are sinning because the primary purpose of your blog was not presenting the gospel, or there are certain circumstances in which it is acceptable to not have presenting the gospel as one’s primary purpose.
Justin Edwards
April 10, 2012
Thanks for the comment, Brendon, but your argument does not hold water.
Firstly, this article was addressed primarily to Christians, so a Gospel presentation was not the main objective of the article. However, the end of the article links to the Gospel as well as to my Catholic page so Catholics (and uninformed Christians) might see the eternal differences between biblical Christianity and Roman Catholicism.
Secondly, the primary purpose of the blog was not to instruct others how to properly minister at an abortion clinic, however, I opened the article with an invitation for the local reader to join us for a training session.
Thirdly, the primary purpose of this website IS the proclamation of the Gospel, which I am sure you will quickly see if you spend a brief amount of time here reviewing the 100s of articles, videos, and resources pointing to the Lord Jesus Christ and His glorious Gospel.
Thanks for your time in reading the article, and I hope to see you around the site.
Brendon Helms
April 10, 2012
Justin,
I am sure that the primary purpose of your blog is the proclamation of the Gospel and this should be applauded. However, when reading through the single blog from above I do not think that anyone who was not a Christian would understand the gospel. That being said you seem to admit, and I agree, that there are certain occasions in which presenting the gospel does not have to be ones primary purpose (the blog above being evidence of this and your comments that presenting the gospel was not your primary purpose). So if in this blog presenting the gospel was not your primary purpose, why is it unacceptable for people to not view presenting the gospel in abortion ministry as their primary purpose? I find this to be a double standard. Further, would you say that there is value in saving the life of an unborn child even if one does not present the gospel?
Justin Edwards
April 10, 2012
Again, Brendon, this blog post was not addressed to unbelievers, but expecting unbelievers to be visit the article, I pointed them to the Gospel as I do in nearly all articles posted on this website. The videos to the right of the page are also saturated with the Gospel and appear on every article.
The reason why the Gospel must be front and center of pro-life work is because abortion is a heart issue. It is a Gospel issue. Regarding 40 Days for Life, it is sinful to join unbelievers under the banner of the Gospel for the reasons mentioned in the article. I also highly recommend you listen to the message at the end of the article titled, A Biblical Defense of Life. My good friend Dustin Segers has been in pro-life ministry for many years and is an elder of Shepherd’s Fellowship in Greensboro, NC. I hope you have a listen.
Now, if God was not mentioned in the 40 Days for Life organization, I would have less issue (or perhaps no issue) with Christians participating. The same could be said for the Manhattan Declaration or any other type of cause. To use another example, I have no problem with Christians volunteering at the Special Olympics as the Special Olympics is not a faith-based program. I hope that gives clarity to my position.
To your last question, yes, there is value in preservation of all life regardless of whether or not the Gospel was presented. However, again, this does not give us reason to set the Gospel aside, regardless of the endeavor.
Brendon Helms
April 10, 2012
Justin,
So you would have no problems working with a Catholic in the Special Olympics, but you would have a problem working with a Catholic doing pro-life work. Is this a correct assessment?
Justin Edwards
April 10, 2012
Not exactly, Brendon. The Special Olympics does not fly the banner of Christianity, so there is no theological compromise. The issue is yoking under the presumption that we serve the same God and believe the same Gospel, which is not true biblically or historically.
Brendon Helms
April 10, 2012
Justin, you really didn’t answer my question.
Justin Edwards
April 11, 2012
I did answer your question, Brendon, but perhaps not in a manner who found acceptable. To be clear, no, I would not have a problem working with a Catholic at the Special Olympics (for the reason previously stated) and would welcome the opportunity as it could be an open door to share Jesus Christ with them.
Brendon Helms
April 11, 2012
How based on your previous criteria of being unequally yoked can you say this? Per the definition you provided as to what Paul meant by being unequally yoked I would have to say that you are unequally yoked to the Roman Catholic you are working with at the Special Olympics. Further, shouldn’t the primary purpose of working at the Special Olympics, per your statements, be to share the gospel. However, your Roman Catholic coworker would no share your concept of the gospel. So if you both see sharing the gospel as your primary purpose, but are at odds as to what the gospel means I believe to be consistent you need to say that you would in fact never work with a Roman Catholic in any situation.
Justin Edwards
April 11, 2012
Brendon, is the Special Olympics a faith-based organization?
Brendon Helms
April 11, 2012
No it is not. However, in your original post you stated that even having a business partner that was not a Christian would be considered unequally yoked. So from the definition that you provided that seems irrelevant. No maybe you want to amend your previous definition to be unequally yoked only refers to ministry related work.
Justin Edwards
April 11, 2012
Honestly, Brendon, you have given me something to consider with regards to the business relationship. I’ve briefly looked into this and see that that might not apply, and will remove that from the OP as I study the matter further. It seems the command to not be “unequally yoked” is referring to spiritual matters alone (worship, ministry, evangelism, etc.). Thank you for the challenge.
Rose Vosburgh
April 11, 2012
One would not be unequally yoked if he worked along side Catholics at the Special Olympics, or the PTA fundraiser, the Food Bank distribution, etc because they are all secular events. The people participating are not coming together for the purpose of fasting and prayer at such an event. 40 Days for Life is not secular since the main purpose IS fasting and prayer. Certainly we should try to find opportunities to share the gospel with people wherever we meet them. But joining with unbelievers in a clearly religious event? I think Justin is right….unequally yoked.
Brendon Helms
April 12, 2012
Then you must now admit that Paul was unequally yoked with Jews in Acts 21. Paul entered the temple and undertook an act of purification (this was in accordance with Jewish law) and he made an offering in the temple. At now point in this clearly religious event did Paul condemn the Jewish temple leaders or present them the gospel. So according to the standard you laid above Paul was unequally yoked with unbelievers because he engaged in a religious event among Jews and administered by Jews.
Rose Vosburgh
April 12, 2012
The text in Acts 21 is talking about Christian Jews (not unbelievers)who, though they were thankful for what God was doing among the Gentiles, still wanted to maintain some of their Jewish practices. Leaders in the Jerusalem church were concerned that Paul was against the practice of these customs that Jewish believers still valued. Paul was counseled by the leaders to sponsor four Christian Jews who were fulfilling a vow of consecretion in order to demonstrate to the Jerusalem believers that he was ok with what they were doing. He was only opposed to the belief that these rituals earned their salvation or added to it in any way. But he was not opposed to Jewish Christian continuing to incorporate those things into their worship as long as they did not compel the Gentile believers to practice them.
Paul’s motive in sponsoring the JewishChristians for consecretion is explained 1 Cor 9:20
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Brendon, thanks for your patience in me getting back to you. Rose did a fine job in answering your objection according to Acts 21. She is correct in saying the Jews here were believing Jews, so Paul was not unequally yoked at all.
Justin Edwards
April 10, 2012
The following has been amended to the article and is highlighted in red: [Edit: A representative from Southern Evangelical Seminary contacted me on 4/10/12 to inform me that they have severed ties with 40 Days for Life (before the publishing of this article) based on information learned about the practices that took place at A Preferred Women’s Health Center on March 31, 2012 (see photos included in this article). The representative informed me the actions of the Catholic group on March 31 was a violation of the 40 Days for Life bylaws. The representative asked for the information about SES be removed from the blog article. I have decided to retain the information on the blog for informational purposes, but I acknowledge and appreciate SES’s decision to cut ties with 40 Days for Life. This does not, however, answer the question as to why SES was involved with this ecumenical organization in the first place. See image to the right for the Sanctity of Life flyer].
Doug Beaumont
April 10, 2012
Justin,
First, for the record, my views are my own.
Second, I never said one’s view on justification did not matter. To be more clear, as it seems I need to be, my point was that the Roman Catholic view of justification is not sufficient to warrant calling them unbelievers (as the citation of 2 Cor. 6 requires to make your argument valid).
Third, as to my alleged straying from orthodoxy, anyone who would like to see scholarly positions that back up the core of what I had to say, I recommend resources such as Bouyer’s “Spirit and Forms of Protestantism” (by a Catholic who argues that Catholics must agree with the core of the original Reformation views), Payton’s “Getting the Reformation Wrong” (by a Reformed author who demonstrates how far Reformed theology often is from the original Reformers’), or Williams’s “Evangelicals and Tradition” (by a Baptist who argues that ignoring the early Church has led to major confusion within Evangelicalism). I might add that your views are not all in line with the Reformers’ (and neither are John MacArthur’s – the Reformers were not all Calvinists, and none were Baptist or Dispensational), so even if they were the arbiters of orthodoxy, that merely leaves us at an impasse.
Finally, as to SES’s involvement with 40DFL – even if SES would, in theory, have been wrong to associate with them given your criteria for what counts as sinful ecumenism, why would you be confused over “why SES was involved with this ecumenical organization in the first place” given that “the actions of the Catholic group on March 31 was a violation of the 40 Days for Life bylaws.” Obviously if what was done was against their bylaws, then SES would have had no way to predict it.
aslave2christ
April 10, 2012
Doug Beaumont wrote:
“(T)he Roman Catholic view of justification is not sufficient to warrant calling them unbelievers…”
My friends, RUN from such compromise, especially at a self described “Evangelical” seminary (as SES is). If there’s one thing an evangelical Christian of any stripe should know, it’s that we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone. For SES to employ a professor who believes (and perhaps teaches?) the heresy that additional works must be done in order for one to be justified (as the Roman Catholic church does) is astonishing. Who among us would pay tuition for our beloved children to go to a seminary where such things are believed, and perhaps taught?
Romans 16:17
“I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.”
Melissa P.
April 10, 2012
That’s very presumptuous for you to make such a charge. Please recant unless you can provide proof that the teachings at SES do not line up with evangelical Christianity?
aslave2christ
April 11, 2012
Recant what? We know what Doug Beaumont believes about Catholicism, based on what he has said here. I simply observed that there is a possibility that he teaches this as well. I did not assert as fact that he does. But as a parent, I would think long and hard about sending my own sons (both who show signs of wanting to be in ministry) to a seminary with such a professor.
Justin Edwards
April 11, 2012
Doug, you said: “the Roman Catholic view of justification is not sufficient to warrant calling them unbelievers” – thus, you do not believe one’s view of justification matters in terms of saving faith. Both of the following cannot result in eternal life:
justification = faith + nothing
justification = faith plus anything
This is what the Reformation was primarily about!
Your last point is irrelevant as the bylaws are irrelevant. 40 Days for Life works under the premise “to bring together the body of Christ in a spirit of unity during a focused 40 day campaign of prayer, fasting, and peaceful activism, with the purpose of repentance, to seek God’s favor to turn hearts and minds from a culture of death to a culture of life, thus bringing an end to abortion in America.” SES should have never been a part of SES based on that alone since in doing so they give credence that the RCC is a part of biblical Christianity.
If I may ask you two questions, Professor: what is a Christian and what is the Gospel?
aslave2christ
April 10, 2012
If SES has severed ties with 40 Days For Life because of 40 Days’ unbiblical practices (as outlined in your article), why doesn’t SES professor Doug Beaumont *get* the problems with Catholicism?
Melissa P.
April 10, 2012
Justin, I am an evangelical and a part of 40 Days for Life; however, I am not writing this on behalf of 40 Days for Life, but on behalf of my own personal observations and thoughts. With that being said, I have a few questions for you…
Since you named Cities 4 Life as the “gospel- centered” ministry that you are aligned in pro-life ministry with, let me ask you: (1) Within the ministering families of Cities 4 Life, are any of them Roman Catholic? (2) Within the Cities 4 Life “Life Network” are there are any Roman Catholics? (3) Within the Cities 4 Life “Life Network”, do any of these ministries work alongside Roman Catholics in pro-life ministry? I would advise you to do some research before answering and it probably would have been wise to have done so before calling out other ministries for working with Roman Catholics. You also mentioned the Sanctity of Life Conference at Southern Evangelical Seminary, which featured both Protestant and Evangelical speakers, as proof that SES has fallen into the ecumenical trap (I’m assuming that’s why you also called out Frank Turek in your blog???), but were you aware that Cities 4 Life had a ministry table at the Sanctity of Life Conference at SES? My point here is not to point fingers and I know that you are fairly new to pro-life ministry here in Charlotte, but was wondering if you were aware of these facts? God bless!
Justin Edwards
April 11, 2012
From my fb wall:
Hi Melissa, thanks for your comment and your patience as I just got back from witnessing. Your comment was awaiting approval and is now posted on the blog. I don’t have time for a complete response tonight, but suffice it to say I am not aware of any of your first three questions. What makes C4L Gospel-centered is obvious from their clear mission objectives on the website, their statement of faith, a requirement to sign the SoF before preaching on the mic, my conversations with those in the ministry testifying to genuine relationships with Jesus Christ, and my observations of the Gospel-centered ministry work taking place on the sidewalk. I was vaguely aware that C4L was at the Sanctity of Life conference, but was not aware at the time it was at SES and was not as familiar with 40 Days as I am now. Perhaps today’s article will give us all something to consider when we plan speaking engagements or attend various conferences. On a personal note, what are your thoughts, as a Christian, about what took place last Saturday?
Brendon Helms
April 10, 2012
aslave2christ,
Instead of labeling Beaumont a heretic maybe it would be best to engage him in conversation. I find that most Reformed minded individuals generally gain their understanding of Roman Catholicism from Protestant sources. I am not endorsing Roman Catholicism, but simply slapping a label on someone is far from actually engaging the arguments. Though I am a Protestant there is a lot that Protestants can learn from Roman Catholicism.
aslave2christ
April 10, 2012
Brendon – what can a Protestant who holds to the true, orthodox faith learn from the heresies of Roman Catholicism?
Brendon Helms
April 10, 2012
aslave2christ,
Have you ever read any Roman Catholic works? Some of the greatest thinkers of Christianity are or were Roman Catholics. You can read Roman Catholic writings on the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, philosophical foundations for Christianity, church history, etc.. In fact I would argue that most Protestants have a terrible philosophical foundation and this is an area that Roman Catholics are much more grounded in. Yes there are areas in which Protestants and Catholics disagree. If there wasn’t then the Protestant Reformation would have never happened. However, that does not mean that Protestants cannot learn from Roman Catholics. Here are some Roman Catholic writers that as a Protestant I feel Protestants could learn a tremendous amount from Thomas Aquinas (deceased), Peter Kreeft, Raymond Brown (deceased), Francis Beckwith, Eleanor Stump, etc. Now I am not saying that I have to believe everything they endorse, but that is where wisdom and discernment come into play.
aslave2christ
April 10, 2012
Brendon, Do you mean Peter Kreeft, the Roman Catholic apologist who, in Ecumenical Jihad, writes about his mystical vision of Buddha and Mohammed, in which these spiritual teachers greeted him in heaven, where they explained to him that we all get there in the end due to our sincerity? Well, any born again Christian with even the tiniest bit of discernment understands that this belief is heretical. Anyone who has truly been born again, even as a babe in the faith, may not have tightened up doctrine in every quarter, but one thing they do know is that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no-one gets to the Father but by Him.
B
April 10, 2012
Okay, so let’s assume for the sake of argument that Peter Kreeft actually defends universalism in Ecumenical Jihad. You’ll find that Brandon gave a very long list. And here’s a longer one: Augustine, Boethius, St. Ambrose, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Ettiene Gilson, Jacques Maritain, Ralph McInerny, nearly all of the natural law theorists. You’ll also find that Brendon’s point was not dependent on everything any single one of these people wrote being true. I recommend that you read any one of these Catholic thinkers without simply looking for a gotcha moment and you will be greatly blessed.
Brendon Helms
April 10, 2012
aslave2christ,
Can you please give me the exact citation where Kreeft asserts what you are accusing him of? Title and page number please. Also, keep in mind that I already stated that I do not endorse everything that every Roman Catholic writer believes. You seem to have a view that if you disagree with one point you have to discount everything that person says. I see no reason to grant this. There are many things that one could learn from Kreeft. For example, is work on Socratic Logic is something that every Christian should read.
aslave2christ
April 10, 2012
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qa1pMig7fFIC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=%22ecumenical+jihad%22+buddha&source=bl&ots=3LN_H66JrJ&sig=cCEn7UJ53V4bh9-C3ZiDzlFCIKA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FO2ET_DONc2ItweS-MXNBw&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22ecumenical%20jihad%22%20buddha&f=false
Brendon Helms
April 11, 2012
After reading through the link that you provided I believe you have completely misrepresented Kreeft and since you were getting your information from MacArthur he likewise was misrepresenting Kreeft. First, he states at the very opening of the chapter that he states “whether what I experienced was heaven or hell, I cannot say. Whether it was real or unreal, objective truth or subjective fantasy I cannot say.” So he is not claiming that what he experienced was an objective event. He simply says he does not know what he experienced, but he had an experience of some type. Further on page 109 he says that the only reason to believe anything is truth. Further on page 109 he explicitly states that there is only one way to salvation and Buddhism, Confucianism, and Islam are not ways. Again I am not saying that I agree with everything that Kreeft every says. But you and MacArthur have falsely labeled him. You need to be careful attacking people without actually reading all of their work. I also have several other books on my book shelf my Kreeft and in those books he is clear that he believes Christianity is the only way.
aslave2christ
April 11, 2012
What is stated on page 109 of this books by Kreeft is “there is only one way.” He does not explicitly state, as you said, that “Buddhism, Confucianism, and Islam are not ways (to God).”
This is not explicitly Christian, and I’ll explain why. Especially coming after passages in which Kreeft goes on at length about the truth or light or whatever that he thinks (from his mystical experience) can be found in false religions, there is a strong implication of Universalism. And believe it or not, there is a strain of Universalism that is “Christian” in flavor, in that Christian Universalists try to work the Cross into their view of Universal salvation for all. Christian Universalists believe that all people are saved through Christ’s death on the Cross, with their proof text (out of context Scripture) for this being Colossians 1:19-20: “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him TO RECONCILE TO HIMSELF ALL THINGS, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” (my emphasis)
In other words, Christian Universalists believe that all people will end up saved, and that those outside the Christian faith just do the best they can based on their own sincere efforts inside their own faith traditions, and that God honors this.
So, based on the language he uses, and the mystical vision that meant so much to him, Peter Kreeft sounds like a Christian Universalist to me.
Brendon Helms
April 11, 2012
On page 109 the question is asked “Are Buddism, Confucianism and Islam ways to salvation?” The answer is given “I did not say that. No there is only one way.” When he talks about truth in other religions he only affirms that there are certain beliefs within other religions that are truth. He endorses a correspondence theory of truth. So therefore, any belief that actually corresponds to reality is truth. So Muslims can believe in truth, but not the whole truth. Kreeft is not a universalist. He states on page 353 in his work “Handbook of Christian Apologetics that “only Christians can be saved. Since other religions are false religions, all non-Christians will go to hell.”
aslave2christ
April 11, 2012
If he truly is a Christian, then he should not muddy the waters with rhapsodic accounts of his mystical visions that have Universalist implications.
Brendon Helms
April 11, 2012
But he clearly states he is not sure if the experience was objective or subjective. He merely reports the experience. There is nothing Unversalists in his claims. Unless you are redefining Universalism to mean speaking positive about other religious systems.
aslave2christ
April 10, 2012
The differences between Christianity and Roman Catholicism are not minor quibbles. Maybe this chart by a former Roman Catholic priest will help.
Click to access Thy_Word_Is_Truth.pdf
Brendon Helms
April 11, 2012
You seem to completely disregard almost everything I say. I fully understand there are differences between Catholics and Protestants. I already said this above actually. I can say that I have read through the Catechism so my knowledge of this is not from a secondary source. However, there are also areas that Catholics and Protestants do agree on. That being said I see no reason a Protestant cannot learn from Catholics.
aslave2christ
April 11, 2012
Brendon – I’m not ignoring what you’re saying…I’m making the point that, as the distinctions between Christianity and Catholicism are major, not minor (i.e., they go the heart of how it is that man is saved), we cannot start having cheerful, open ended dialogues with Catholics and begin taking instruction from them on spiritual matters. Sure, a Catholic might be able to show me how to trim a hedge, set up a trust fund, bake a souffle, etc., but a Catholic cannot instruct me on spiritual matters. He has nothing that I need. In fact, I alone, as a Christian, have what he needs…..spiritual truths that will reveal his own beliefs for the lie that they are, truths that will set him free from the Judgment and spiritual death he is inevitably hurtling toward without them.
Did Paul say:
“Shew, those Judaizers, sure they’ve got some problems, but there’s no reason we have to discount everything they say. I see no reason why we cannot learn from them.”
No, this is what he said:
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!” (Gal 1:6-9)
Justin Edwards
April 11, 2012
Amen, Christine!
Brendon Helms
April 11, 2012
But notice that Paul clearly identifies himself with the Pharisees on the issue of the Resurrection. Of course, Paul would not endorse fully endorse the Pharisees. However, on the issue of the Resurrection he sided with the Pharisees as opposed to the Sadducees (Acts 23). We see in Acts 17 Paul using a Greek poets who agree with what he is saying (at partial agreement). By citing Gal 1 you are not defeating my argument. I would fully agree with Paul in this statement. However, Paul clearly is talking about a perversion of the gospel. Which I am willing to agree that according to the Catechism Roman Catholicism does this. However, Paul does not say that we cannot learn from someone who distorts the gospel. Again we can look at matters like the Trinity and see that Roman Catholic scholars provide a tremendous amount of incite into understanding this doctrine. I would argue that by not being aware of the arguments of made by Catholic scholars many Protestants have abandoned a strong philosophical foundation on which Christianity rests. I am not sure if you are just being naive or are simply uninformed about matters that Protestants and Catholics agree upon. On those matters I find it absurd to think that Protestants cannot learn from Catholics. I would include in this lists issues such as the Trinity, philosophical anthropology, the dual nature of Christ, New Testament and Old Testament reliability, sanctity of life, and others. Further, with the charges that you label against Catholics were are you getting them from? Are they have Catholic sources or from Protestant sources?
Rose Vosburgh
April 11, 2012
‘Paul does not say that we cannot learn from someone who distorts the gospel.’
Where exactly, sir, (chapter and verse) does Paul say specifically that we can and should learn from someone who distorts the gospel? Just because he pointed out that the Pharisees were right on resurrection compared to the Sadducees ..you cannot infer from that (as you are suggesting) that Paul endorsed uniting with and studying the teachings of people who teach false doctrines. If you take all of Galatians in context, what he is saying is just the opposite!
“A little leaven leavens the whole lump.”(Galatians 5:9) And that is the problem with mining the teachings of Catholicism for truth. Sure, there is some truth there, but there is also much gross falsehood. Truth mixed with error…this is exactly what Paul was addressing when he spoke of a different gospel in Galatans 1. And why would you ever need to go to the Catholics to look for truth? We have the Word! It is all there…all the truth we need. The Catholic Church may teach the reliability of the Scriptures, but it does not hold to the belief of Scripture alone. Catholics are taught that church tradition is on equal par with the Scriptures. That is how the apostate beliefs came about within the Catholic Church…praying to and venerating Mary and the saints, the belief that the host and wine a become the actual body and blood of Christ in the Mass whereby Christ is sacrificed again and again for our sins daily. That right there should be enough to warn you away from this false religion!! NO WHERE is that practice taught in the Scripture. When you vere away from Scripture, that opens the door to all kinds of false teachings of men to creep in. Like the pratice of contemplative mysticism that had it origins in Catholicism. Those so- called ‘ancient’ practices that are creeping into mainstream evangelicialism today because people crave for experience over truth. Evangelicals are looking to Catholics to instruct them in these truly paganistic practices. This is what happens when you look to Cathoics for truth…error creeps in and inflitrates Christianity. The Word is all the truth we need!
‘the charges that you label against Catholics where are you getting them from? Are they have Catholic sources or from Protestant sources?’
I speak as one who was Catholic for many years. I know what the Catholic Church teaches better than you do. I was raised in it, educated in Catholic schools from grade school on up through college. Taught in a Catholic school, even spent summers in retreat with nuns. You won’t get much more Catholic than I was. And, since coming to faith in Christ alone, I can tell you the Catholic Church has nothing for me to learn from it…nothing! On the contrary, it held me back, it damned my soul to hell. It is only by God’s amazing grace I am saved today. Praise His Holy Name!
Don’t waste your time going back to Rome to find truth. We HAVE it! Embrace it and share it so that others, who are like I was, can be set free by the TRUE and understand the COMPLETE gospel rather than be bound by a false system of works-righteousness which cannot save anyone…which is what Catholisicm teaches…and it is totally the opposite of what Paul is teaching in Galatians.
Brendon Helms
April 11, 2012
A few things I will respond to here. First, you seem to believe that unless Scripture endorses a position one should not perform said action. So in your mind unless Paul says that we can and should learn from people who distort the gospel then we shouldn’t if he does not. But this is an argument from silence. There are many things we do that Scripture does not speak specifically on that we must make wise and ethical decisions. So unless Scripture commands us not to learn from others then we have the freedom to do so (unless there is another ethical problem at hand). Now we actually do find evidence of Paul used the teachings of a Cretan poet in Titus 1 to make his case. Now I’m sure Paul did not agree with everything the Cretan poet endorsed, but in this instance since the Cretan poet was speaking truth it was acceptable to use the wisdom of the poet.
In the context of Galations 5 you miss the point. The leven that Paul is talking about is being circumcised for salvation. So yes if you endorse that false belief then the leven impacts the whole lump. But that did not mean that the Galatians could not have learned from the Pharisees teachings on the Resurrection because that would have been negative. This is where wisdom and discerment come into play.
I feel that you are making a rash decision to completely abandon all of Catholicism because there are certain false beliefs within Catholicism. Truth is truth. So if Catholics correctly understand the Trinity, which they do, then I can read Thomas Aquinas’ work on the Trinity and learn truth. It does not matter where the truth comes from as long as it is true. If the High Priest spoke some truth when condemning Jesus (John 11).
You mention Scripture being all the truth we need. To a point I agree with you, but your position is a bit naive. There are many commitments we make that are not addressed in Scripture that have major implications for us. For example, the Bible does not give us a philosophy of language. However, without a solid philosophy of language you cannot even trust that words have any real meaning. The Bible does not explain how three persons and can be one God. The Bible does not explain how one person can be fully God and fully man. So again I think it is naive to simply say all we need is found in the Bible. I think I get your point, but it is a bit simplistic.
Rose Vosburgh
April 11, 2012
‘…in your mind unless Paul says that we can and should learn from people who distort the gospel then we shouldn’t if he does not.’
Yes, true, because what Paul wrote is the inspired Word of God. (And he is NOT silent on this issue.) No where does he say we should learn from people who distort the gospel. In fact, he consistently says the opposite. We do not have the freedom to go and sit at the feet of people who teach a false gospel and learn from them.
‘…we actually do find evidence of Paul used the teachings of a Cretan poet in Titus 1 to make his case.’
You are contextualizing….making the text mean what you want it to. Paul did not ‘use (the) teachings’ if this guy. He simply stated that one of the Cretan prophets (not meaning the man was a true prophet of God) had stated that the Cretan people always lie, cheat and do evil and, in that assessment/observation of the Cretans’ character, that man’s opinion was correct. Paul wasn’t implying that we can learn anything of value from the Cretan’s false system of religion! On the contary, Paul said “rebuke them sharply”. Titus himself was to ‘rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith’, and he was also to appoint leaders who would do the same.
‘The Bible does not explain how three persons and can be one God’.
No, but is my understanding of HOW God exists in three person or of how Christ could be fully God and fully man essential to salvation? It is only important that I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity and that I believe that Christ is both God and man. And, I believe those things by faith and because I believe the Word of God is true. There are some things we can’t totally comprehend this side of eternity. The Trinity and Jesus’s dual nature are two of them.. God says it, I believe it…and someday I WILL understand it when I get to heaven.
‘you are making a rash decision to completely abandon all of Catholicism because there are certain false beliefs within Catholicism’
But, some of those false beliefs are completely contrary to the Gospel…nullify it!…and are in essence, another gospel. There are many false teachings in the Catholic Church, but the main damning one is how salvation is obtained…works based righteousness. That is what the Catholic Church teaches. I am a former Catholic and you won’t believe even ME. I lived it. (You are believing what you want to believe not what the Scriptures teach.) Why would I return to a religion which is false? The little truth the Catholics have is just enough to damn them to hell.
You have missed the point of Galatians completely. It is not just about circumcision, but about keeping the Law or any man made rules in order to merit salvation. The Catholic Church loads a person down with laws, rules, obligations…things you must do, do, do. They believe in Jesus; yes, but also in earning their way to heaven by keeping the rules and traditions of the Church. That is the very thing Paul addresses in Galatians.
You have lots of knowledge, sir. But do you truly have the Savior? I question that because, why are you looking to false religions for more ‘truth’. Jesus IS the truth. Call me naive and simplistic if you like, but you are making things far more complicated than they need to be. The gospel message is so simple that even a child can grasp it…yet men complicate it, weigh it down, and make it inaccessible to those who need to hear it most…. unsaved Catholic people…like I was for so many years…. a real disgrace. And that, sir, is exactly what Paul was addressing in Galatians. As a former Catholic, I am especially fond of that book.
Brendon Helms
April 11, 2012
Rose,
I will give you the last word after this post.
You say that Paul consistently says that we should not learn from people who believe a false gospel. I have to disagree with you here. I would say that Paul is silent on this issue. Now to take Paul’s silence as a confirmation that we should not do this commits multiple fallacies. First, this is an argument from silence and second it begs the question.
Yes, Paul did say that the people of should be rebuked. However, by agreeing with the Cretan’s statement Paul affirms the Cretan’s statement. Therefore, Paul learned something from the poet. This demonstrates my position. Paul could take this one truth from the Cretan poet, use it and apply it, but then rebuke them for other false beliefs. For your position to hold true. Paul should not have used the Cretan at all.
I agree with you about the essentials of understanding the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ in relationship to salvation. But Peters tells us in 2 Peter 1 that we are to grow in knowledge. So you should not simply be satisfied with the simply knowledge that you have.
If you were only recently saved I would say this is OK. But according to 2 Peter 1 we are to add knowledge to our faith. There is a tremendous amount that can be learned from a more in depth understanding of the Trinity. That is not to say we will fully understand it, but it essential, according to 2 Peter 1, that we grow in our knowledge of it.
I am not saying that Catholic Church is completely accurate in their teachings. Again I have read the Catechism so I understand the official position of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact there are many areas that I would strongly disagree with. I have stated this strongly above. However, truth is truth. If the Roman Catholic Church teaches any amount of truth then in those areas it is OK to learn from them. To say that simply because that truth is coming from the Roman Catholic Church we should deny it or disregard it is to commit a logical fallacy. In this case it would be the genetic fallacy.
In regards to the book of Galatians the purpose of the book is that the Galatians experienced a change in viewpoint/attitude to the gospel that Paul taught them. The reason that this change occurred was because of false teachers coming to them. These false teachings included circumcision, observing Jewish days and seasons. However, the primary issue was circumcision. We see that Paul travels to Jerusalem to discuss this with James, Peter, and John on this issue. Further, Paul directly opposes Peter on this issue. Yes, following the totality of the Mosaic law was the overarching issue, but circumcision was the single biggest issue of following the Mosaic law. So I did not miss the point of Galatians. My previous comment was related directly to the context of the leaven in the lump. Now in regards to my previous statement about the leaven and circumcision: the leaven is mentioned in verse 8 of chapter 5. From verses 2-6 Paul is talking directly about accepting circumcision. So in context the leaven that Paul was talking about was accepting circumcision as a requirement for salvation.
Yes I am a believer in Jesus. I fully believe that Jesus Christ died to pay a debt for my sins that I could not pay own my own. The only way man can be saved from death, both spiritual and physical, is through faith in Jesus Christ. I am honestly appalled by the arrogance of your question. You question my salvation because I follow truth whatever the source? Here we see a problem that most Protestants encounter. They have no understanding of philosophy. If you understood the nature of truth. They you would have no problem learning from Roman Catholics, Muslims, or even atheists in areas that they were speaking/teaching truth. Please do not question peoples salvation because they do not hold to your uninformed view of truth. I would suggest you take a look at Paul Copan’s book “True for you, but not for me.” Copan is an Evangelical philosopher who clearly and simply demonstrates the nature of truth.
Rose Vosburgh
April 11, 2012
‘Paul learned something from the poet.’
And what great truth did Paul learn? The Cretian prophet simply stated that the Cretians were evil people. He could have said the sky is blue and that would be true,too. He was making an observation not expounding some great truth that Paul then embraced as his own. You are really reading into verses things you want to see there.
‘I am honestly appalled by the arrogance of your question. You question my salvation because I follow truth whatever the source?’
Yes, I do because, as I have said before, we already have THE source of truth, the Bible…God Himself wrote it. Scripture alone…one of the five solas. As a former Catholic, it is just inconceivable to me that a saved person would go to the apostaste Roman Catholic Church to find truth…to a church that puts the traditions of men on equal par with Scripture. Totally inconceivable.
Thank you for letting me have the last word. I would just like to caution you in your quest for truth not to become involved in contemplative mysticism…a very Catholic practice. Many others, like you, who are going back to Rome in search of deeper truths, end up being lead away from truth and into practices that are actually pagan.
Brendon Helms
April 12, 2012
I apologize for commenting when I said I would give you the last word. What do you think “truth” is?
Jenny
April 11, 2012
Thank you for the pdf resource sister.
aslave2christ
April 11, 2012
You’re welcome 🙂 There are also a number of other very good resources (including audio and articles) at this site (Berean Beacon).
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/
Melissa P.
April 11, 2012
[Moderator edit: this comment has been edited to protect the privacy of the doctors mentioned]
Justin, thanks for responding (on facebook). I understand that it’s been a long day for you as it has been for me as well. As far how I feel about the events that took place at Latrobe on March 31st, I wasn’t there in order to comment, but I will say this, if you were sincerely concerned about how I felt on this matter, then maybe you should have asked me my thoughts prior to blasting myself and other evangelicals, who you know are involved in 40 Days for Life on a public blog. I’m sure that it would have given you a different perspective much different than that which you presented.
As far as the three questions that I posed to you, I still await your answers. Upon doing more research, you will find that there is a Roman Catholic family (the _______s) listed on the Cities 4 Life website under ministering families, Life Network & Leadership Team. I will refer you to their website to verify that information. To be fair, I know Dr. _______ and I strongly believe that he is a man of God doing the Lord’s work to save babies. I have no problem whatsoever engaging in pro-life ministry with him and I have in the past.
So this brings me to my concluding point. If 40 Days for Life is in error and are compromisers of truth for working with Roman Catholics, then how do you reconcile working with an organization who also has a Roman Catholic on their leadership team and ministry team? Justin, this seems to leave you with two options…(1) Cities 4 Life, who you work with and promoted in your blog are compromisers of the Gospel as well or (2) you need to recant your position that working with Roman Catholics in pro-life ministry makes one a compromiser of truth.
In conclusion, you spent the last several months working with a group that has a Roman Catholic on leadership and within their ministering families while blasting people in your blogpost for working with Roman Catholics. Do that make you (1) a compromiser of truth or (2) ignorant because you didn’t do your research? I eagerly await your answers to these questions above.
Justin Edwards
April 11, 2012
[Moderator edit: this comment has been edited to protect the privacy of the doctors mentioned]
From my fb wall:
Good morning, Melissa. Thanks for the reply. My intention was not to “blast” you or other evangelicals who are involved with 40 Days. Being that what took place was in public and that the issues with 40 Days for Life are not restricted to what happened last Saturday based on public information provided on the internet, including public information provided on the Charlotte chapter’s website, the public article was appropriate as it is an issue that goes beyond your personal experience and is relevant to an untold number of evangelicals involved, formerly involved, or wondering whether they should be involved with 40 Days. Frankly, this is an important matter for the Body of Christ, especially with the condition of the church and the ecumenical and pluralistic threats it is facing and being influenced by. To the extent that I failed to write the article in such a way that you would not feel personally attacked, I apologize and ask your forgiveness. My intention was for all evangelicals involved with 40 Days to examine their relationship with 40 Days in light of God’s Word and whether it is something they should participate in. I do hope you consider the things I have written and will seek the Lord in the matter.
Addressing your points about any RCC relationship C4L has with anyone, I have been informed that Dr. ______ is a born again believer and his wife is Catholic. Being that this is all the information I have, I am not comfortable in discussing the matter further. If Dr. _______ is a born again believer, then you have misrepresented him and C4L’s relationship with him. Whatever the case, this is not the forum to discuss Dr. ________ or his wife’s relationship with the Lord.
As I mentioned in the comment section of the blog, the issue is not whether Christians should work with Catholics on any given cause, the issue is working with Catholics under the presumption that we worship the same Jesus and believe the same Gospel. We don’t, and to work under the banner as if we do is harmful to the Body of Christ, it’s harmful to Catholics, it’s harmful to the lost you are trying to help, and it’s direct disobedience to God’s clear command to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.
I commend the work that 40 Days has done for the unborn, and I commend the volunteers who sacrifice the time, energy, and financial resources, regardless of religion, as it is a noble thing to do. But trying to end abortion apart from the Gospel will never happen. THAT is why it is a Gospel issue – because it’s a heart issue. If the heart is not being confronted, then nothing will change. Am I suggesting 40 Days stop what they are doing? No, absolutely not. But I think the Bible is clear that Christians should not join hands with those who hate the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ, especially under the presumption that we are all unified in Christ when we believe in different Christ’s. If you are unfamiliar as to why biblical Christianity and Roman Catholicism are eternally different religions, I encourage you to study the matter since this issue is so close to home for you. Here’s a great place to start: https://airocross.com/roman-catholicism/
It is not possible for us to know everything about everything, but when we are faced with the truth or gain knowledge of error, we have to deal with it. C4L is not beyond accountability, nor is any Christian or any ministry. When the light exposes something that is not in accordance with God’s Word, we must handle it appropriately in obedience to God. My hope is C4L will take the opportunity to reemphasize their position as a Gospel-centered ministry and will continue to keep their focus on Jesus Christ and the Great Commission. By putting their cards on the table, anyone can see clearly what they truly are about, especially when observed in action. I think the same can be said for any organization, and frankly this was the case for 40 Days for Life. What we saw happen on March 31st was a natural thing to occur considering 40 Days materials and endorsements are saturated with Roman Catholicism.
I hope I have answered you questions and addressed your points clearly, Melissa. I have stated my position and stand by my article. I hope this will cause everyone watching to examine these matters through the lens of Scripture, that we would aim to please God rather than men.
Melissa P.
April 11, 2012
[Moderator edit: this comment has been edited to protect the privacy of the doctors mentioned]
Justin, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I would like to look at it in light of the three questions I asked you and your responses. Here are the questions I asked you:
Since you named Cities 4 Life as the “gospel- centered” ministry that you are aligned in pro-life ministry with, let me ask you:
(1) Within the ministering families of Cities 4 Life, are any of them Roman Catholics?
(2) Within the Cities 4 Life “Life Network” are there are any Roman Catholics?
(3) Within the Cities 4 Life “Life Network”, do any of these ministries work alongside Roman Catholics in pro-life ministry?
In regards to the first question you said:
“Addressing your points about any RCC relationship C4L has with anyone, I have been informed that Dr. _______ is a born again believer and his wife is Catholic. Being that this is all the information I have, I am not comfortable in discussing the matter further. If Dr. _______ is a born again believer, then you have misrepresented him and C4L’s relationship with him. Whatever the case, this is not the forum to discuss Dr. _______ or his wife’s relationship with the Lord.”
In response:
1- Dr.____ and his wife, who you just pointed out is Catholic) are both listed and pictured in the “ministering families” section as well as in the Cities 4 Life team leader section.
2- Dr. ______ is a medical advisor for Priests for Life (one of the groups that you called out in your blog)
3- Dr. _________ is under the assumption that C4L is in support of working with Roman Catholics (can provide his quoted statement if needed) based on discussions he has had in Cities 4 Life Leadership meetings. Dr. ______ is on the leadership team so I would assume he would have better knowledge of this than you.
In regards to my second question:
(2) Within the Cities 4 Life “Life Network” are there are any Roman Catholics?
The answer to this question is YES! Dr. ______ who is listed on the website as a under Life Network is a Roman Catholic. Also Lisa Bradle, who is a staffmember of Monroe HELP Pregnancy Center, who C4L also works with, is Roman Catholic. Be prepared to hear from some of these folks in the coming days.
You did NOT do your research before you wrote this article and to shine the spotlight on the 40 Days for Life and to claim that those Christians working with them are compromising the truth and then promote a group that you are a part of that does the same thing either makes you a compromiser of truth as well or demonstrates you did not do your research and actually worked for months with a group that according your view are compromisers of truth. Let me be clear, I don’t think that 40 Days for Life or Cities for Life are compromisers of truth, I’m just basing this off your own definition as outlined in your blogpost.
As for my third question:
(3) Within the Cities 4 Life “Life Network”, do any of these ministries work alongside Roman Catholics in pro-life ministry?
It is well known that Flip Benham (of Operative Save America, listed in your Life Network and father to the founders of C4L) who I highly respect and consider to a friend and mentor, does do ministry with Priests for Life and has for years and it is no secret. Is Operation Save America now a compromiser of the gospel as well?
Also Dr. ________ is a medical adviser for the priests for life.
All three of these questions have exposed the hypocrisy and poor research you did before writing this article. You publicly called out churches, Southern Evangelical Seminary and teachers like Frank Turek and Pastors also and told everybody they were compromisers of truth while all the while the group you have worked with for months has done the exact same thing.
My question to you is are you now going to write a blog post on how C4L are compromisers of truth? If not, then you are being hypocritical? Again for the record, I do not hold that 40 Days for Life, Cities for Life or OSA are compromisers of truth. They are all doing great work! I’m just holding you to own standards and definition of what constitutes being a compromiser.
Secondly, are you going to continue to work with C4L now that you have the information (which you should have had before you wrote your post) that they have Catholics on their team and the other info I provided? Please answer these questions.
In conclusion, you said:
“As I mentioned in the comment section of the blog, the issue is not whether Christians should work with Catholics on any given cause, the issue is working with Catholics under the presumption that we worship the same Jesus and believe the same Gospel. We don’t, and to work under the banner as if we do is harmful to the Body of Christ, it’s harmful to Catholics, it’s harmful to the lost you are trying to help, and it’s direct disobedience to God’s clear command to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.”
You described Cities 4 Life as a gospel- centered ministry and I’m not disputing that they are. You also said that abortion is a gospel issue so by your own definitions, to work with a Roman Catholic on a gospel issue when you don’t believe in the same gospel would be compromising right? But is one of the leaders of C4L “unequally yoked” for working with Father Pavone in pro-life ministry and disobedient to the gospel? Are you also disobedient by working with a group that has Roman Catholics in leadership positions not to mention a leader who has outreach events coming up with priests for life?
My prayer is you take another look at your position and at the very least please do your research and get your facts before publicly blasting people and calling them disobedient to Christ and compromisers of truth when you have done the same thing.
So will you be writing a blog post on how C4L (the group you promoted in this post) are compromisers of truth and disobedient to the gospel and not work with them anymore? Or will you continue to work with them even though you just blasted the 40 Days for Life for doing the same thing C4L is doing? Again, I appreciate the work of Cities 4 Life and I know most of them personally and love them and have ministered alongside them, but I think you will find brother Justin, since you are new to pro-life work, there are instance when it is advantageous to work with Catholics. I am very familiar with Roman Catholic doctrine and I agree on some points and clearly disagree on some other theological points. I think you could have presented your blog in a much better way than you did by pointing fingers and calling out names, especially in light of the things I have just presented to you.
Please answer these questions so we all know where you stand publicly
Justin Edwards
April 11, 2012
Melissa, this is an acknowledgement of your comment. I hope to respond as soon as possible and thank you for your patience.
Justin Edwards
April 12, 2012
[Moderator edit: this comment has been edited to protect the privacy of the doctors mentioned]
Hi Melisaa, thank for your patience in me getting back to you. You have posed a few questions that I hope to answer in this comment.
I want to first say that I emphatically stand by my position as given in the article. God’s Word is clear in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 that Christians should not be yoked in spiritual enterprise with nonbelievers. 40 Days is a religious organization that presumes Christians, Roman Catholics, and other traditions are all part of the Body of Christ. 40 Days stands on prayer and fasting and encourages people from these different religions to join together in this spiritual act of worship as if they are all Christians. This is direct disobedience to God’s command in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18. Your problem is not with me, but with God’s Word or your understanding of God’s Word. To understand this issue better, I will be going through the following series by John MacArthur titled “The Relationship Danger Zone: Separating from Unbelievers“. In it, MacArthur covers 5 reasons why Christians should not engage in spiritual enterprise with nonbelievers: it is irrational, sacrilegious, disobedient, unprofitable and ungrateful. Perhaps I will do this as a 4-week series soon, Lord willing, and hope you join me.
Secondly, I want to say upfront that I stand by my convictions according to my understanding of God’s Word, and by the Lord’s grace I will remain consistent and will apply my convictions to my own personal ministry. Your attempt to malign my character as hypocritical is unfounded, and I will explain why.
The two main points you have tried to make about the writing of this article is that it “exposes” that I am either a “compromiser of the truth” and that I did not do my research before writing the article. Neither is true.
First and foremost, I do believe C4L to be a Gospel-centered ministry and this is why we partnered with them. For a few weeks surrounding the C4L dinner I did my due diligence in “vetting” C4L. In a previous comment I said with regards to my researching C4L as a Gospel-centered ministry that they have “clear mission objectives on the website, their statement of faith, a requirement to sign the SoF before preaching on the mic, my conversations with those in the ministry testifying to genuine relationships with Jesus Christ, and my observations of the Gospel-centered ministry work taking place on the sidewalk.” I can in good conscience say I did do my due diligence to the best of my ability, yet I am willing to concede I did not learn of everything possible to know about the ministry. This has been a lesson for me to make sure I ask the right questions when deciding to partner with any ministry so to make the best informed decision, but this does not make me a hypocrite.
Concerning Dr. ______’s family, the only comment I will make is that there is no indication that Mrs. _______ is Catholic on the website, or that Dr. ______ is associated with Priests for Life.
I do not know anything about Dr. ______ other than he is listed as a medical doctor in the network.
______ is a “staff member”, which I assume to mean she is a paid employee of Monroe HELP. Monroe HELP gives no indication that they are ecumenical and make clear in their foundations page they are submitted to the Lordship of Christ as an evangelistic arm in the church in obedience to the Great Commission.
I have yet to completely understand the summer event that will include OSA and Frank Pavone.
At this point in time, Melissa, I am still working through this information and hope to better understand the dynamic of it all. I previously made the comment, “It is not possible for us to know everything about everything, but when we are faced with the truth or gain knowledge of error, we have to deal with it.” I stand by that comment, Melissa – will you? When I have gathered all the information I need to make an informed and wise decision based on the whole counsel of God, I will do the right thing to stand by my convictions according to God’s Word.
Having said this, none of this changes anything with regards to 40 Days for Life being an ecumenical ministry heavily indoctrinated with Roman Catholicism and why evangelicals have yoked themselves with nonbelievers. Two questions I have for you are:
1) Is the RCC part of the Body of Christ?
2) Does the RCC teach the unadulterated Gospel of Jesus Christ?
3) If you answer no to both questions, how do you justify praying and fasting and doing ministry work in the name of God with people of other religions when God has clearly said not to do so?
40 Days for Life is openly ecumenical, Melissa. If I understand correctly, you are a leader for the Charlotte chapter for 40 Days. If this is the case, how is it that the following Catholic documents for prayer are listed on your prayer page: Prayer Intentions for Each Day of the Vigil, Vigil Prayer Book – Catholic Interest, Vigil Prayer Book – All, Stations of the Cross, Lenten Rosary to End Abortion. Do you approve of these things? If not, why have you allowed them on the website? If you do, why do you approve of prayers and practices God hates? You may consider these rhetorical questions if you wish.
Melissa, I trust you are a born again believer in our Lord Jesus Christ. Please do not toss to the wayside the admonishment in the article, which was for anyone Christian involved with 40 Days or any other ecumenical organization operating in the name of God. I am working through things with C4L and will stand by my convictions. What will you do, or any evangelical do, now that you have been made aware of the sin and dangers in yoking with nonbelievers in spiritual enterprise?
Brendon Helms
April 11, 2012
What exactly do you mean by a different Jesus. I completely agree with you that Catholics and Protestants have a different view of salvation. However, I fail to see how we have a different view on Jesus himself. If what you mean is that Catholics and Protestants view the work of Jesus differently then once again I would agree. But if you mean that there is difference in how Catholics and Protestants view the second person of the Trinity I fail to see that. Can you clarify exactly what you mean on this?
Justin Edwards
April 11, 2012
We cannot separate Jesus from the Gospel, or vice versa. If we redefine who Jesus is, we believe in a false jesus. If we redefine Jesus’ work, we believe in a different jesus. For example, say you sell car insurance for a living and have been doing so for 30 years. If I believe that you are a fireman who puts out fires, I do not believe in the real Brendon because the real Brendon sales car insurance. I would believe in a lie.
The RCC teaches a number of things about Jesus and His work that are not biblical. They might get some things right about Him (like I might believe correctly that you are a white male, married, with two children if that were true), but if they do not believe in the totality of who Christ is and what He has accomplished (and in fact redefine who He is and His work), then they do not believe in the biblical Jesus (like I would not believe in the real Brendon if I say you are a fireman even though I believe correctly on other characteristics).
The RCC redefines Jesus in their teaching of transubstantiation. They likewise redefine His finished work through their practice of Mass and have redefined justification. If one believes in the Catholic jesus and the way to salvation as taught by the RCC, they believe in a false jesus and a false way of salvation that will lead them to eternal hell.
See 2 Corinthians 11:4 and Galatians 1:8-9.
Brendon Helms
April 11, 2012
I don’t feel in any way you actually demonstrated that the Jesus of Protestants is different from the Jesus of Roman Catholicism. You demonstrated that they have different views of justification and the sacraments. However, you are confusing categories to lump all of these together. When I am talking about who Jesus is I am talking about Christology. Catholics and Protestants agree here. Now justification is a separate category from Christology. Yes the two categories are related in certain ways, but they are separate categories. So unless you are saying that Christology, the sacraments, and justifications are virtually one and the same (which I know of no Systematic Theologian who would agree with that) then we can say that Roman Catholics and Protestants have the same view of Jesus (Christology), but they disagree on the work of Jesus (soteriology).
Justin Edwards
April 11, 2012
Brendon, does Jesus exist in a wafer? Is He sacrificed daily in the thousands of Masses around the globe?
Brendon Helms
April 11, 2012
I would answer no to both. However, those are issues of Ecclesiology.
Jenny
April 12, 2012
Brendon,
Please read this.
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a102.htm
Brendon Helms
April 12, 2012
The link would not work.
Rose Vosburgh
April 13, 2012
Try it again, Brendon. I just clicked on it and it is working now. Great website.
Devin
April 11, 2012
aslave2christ,
Roman Catholics and protestants both would agree on a number of theological matters such as
1-The doctrine of the Trinity
2-The hypo-static union
3-The communicatio idiomatum (“communication of properties”)
4-The physical Resurrection of Christ
5-Arguments for Gods existence (Cosmological arguments, Teleological arguments, Arguments from Natural Law etc)
To say you could not learn anything about doctrine from Roman Catholics is absurd and I would love to see a rational explanation as to why you could not learn anything from Roman Catholics on the topics I listed.
By the way I am Reformed in my soteriology and have learned a tremendous amount from Catholic philosophers and theologians on the topics I listed.
premisaac2009
April 11, 2012
Justin,
My name is Prem Isaac (pronounced “prame” my contact info is creationmatters@hotmail.com 704-578-1542) and I am writing to you because Southern Evangelical Seminary is my alma mater(MA Philosophy, 2010), and I am quite surprised that you would malign an entire seminary not to mention other organizations, PUBLICLY. I assume therefore, that you have thoughtfully decided that a PUBLIC FORMAT is the proper way to go about voicing your concerns(you could have called my Seminary privately to ask questions or voice concerns).
Let me ask you, are you open for a public debate with Students/Alumni from Southern Evangelical Seminary? If so, perhaps we can put one together. If not, then why not? We’ll only be discussing what you have already stated publicly. Or, if you are averse to public interaction with my Seminary, why don’t you do yourself a favor, and edit your blog to DROP my Seminary’s name from your (public) statements?
I have another important set of questions to ask you. Suppose that the United States of America was going to be attacked by a foreign enemy, with the intention the killing civilian lives(innocent blood, basically), much like the 9/11 event in New York City. Are you willing to BEAR ARMS side by side with Catholic Americans, Jewish Americans, idol-worshipping Hindu Americans, and Muslim Americans to fight this enemy and prevent the loss of civilian lives? When you pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, are you not joining hands with millions of non-evangelicals, be they Catholic, Hindu, or whatever? Clearly such a bond is not Gospel-centered or Christ-centered in any sense of the word. If you cannot answer yes to the prior 2 questions, will that not mean you are a traitor to the United States? If that were to be your answer, in good conscience, we’ll have to report you to the US Government for treason. If you do answer yes, how do you justify it – do you really think its quite ok, for the purpose of protecting life, to be an integral part of the US armed forces (an organization in which, I emphasize, there are muslim and catholic soldiers, chaplains, and muslim and catholic worship services, not to mention other religions).
In like manner, working to end abortion is an attempt to save innocent lives. How is it ok for you or anyone to swear allegiance to the US Govt and bear arms on its behalf, but somehow WRONG to link efforts with Catholics in a similar attempt to save innocent life? Kindly enlighten me and the readers of your blog!
Hoping to hear from you,
Prem Isaac, Charlotte, NC
Justin Edwards
April 11, 2012
Hi Prem,
Thank you for the comment. How is it that I have maligned SES? I have simply posted on information that SES was associated with 40 Days for Life, an overtly Catholic-saturated and ecumenical organization that considers numerous churches and traditions to be part of the Body of Christ regardless of their views of soteriology. I made the appropriate edits to the blog reflecting SES has cut ties with 40 Days for Life, but there is indeed still a question as to why SES was involved in the first place if it knew of the ecumenical issue. What’s more and also concerning, is SES professor Doug Beaumont considers the RCC to be part of the Body of Christ (quote, “Catholics are not unbelievers”). Why does SES allow him to be on staff if he indeed holds that position?
Your military argument does not compute as our government does not fly a Gospel banner so there would be no compromise. Again, the issue is not linking efforts with Catholics, the issue is linking with Catholics under the presumption that we believe in the same Gospel and the same Jesus. I refer you to the entire response from John MacArthur regarding the Manhattan Declaration. Perhaps this will give you a better understanding of the issue from my perspective: http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/a390
Justin Edwards
April 11, 2012
A follow-up question for you, Prem – do you believe the RCC is part of the Body of Christ? In other words, does the RCC teach the unadulterated Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ?
premisaac2009
April 11, 2012
Justin,
You still havent answered whether you are open to a public debate with students/alumni from SES on any concerns you have about the Seminary’s position. It would give you a direct forum to bring up any and all of your concerns, wouldnt it?
As for the presumption being made, does 40 Days for life document this explicitly? Do they explicitly fly a Gospel banner? It looks like you are reading into statements being made which do not directly aim at defining the Gospel or any of the known differences between Catholics and Evangelicals. In the Pledge of Allegiance, there is the phrase “one nation under God”. Why will you not read a presumption concerning who God actually is (which is understood very differently by those who say the pledge) in the case of the pledge? At SES we go to great lengths to differentiate and distinguish between true and erroneous conceptions of God, which is more basic, actually, than the Gospel itself, since there wouldn’t be a Gospel unless the Deity is actually who Evangelicals say He is. Historically, Christians have spent years fighting various heresies on this very topic. Shouldnt that be sufficient cause for you, by the same logic you are using, to take exception to reciting the Pledge, on the grounds that it gives a false impression that everyon reciting the Pledge has the same view of God?
At the end of the day, the primary goal of 40 days for life doesnt seem to be to preach the Gospel, though it is composed largely of religiously minded people. Convincing a pregnant woman not to kill her unborn child appears to be their aim. And I for one dont have a problem with that, because true disciples of Christ are going to preach the true Gospel one way or another. No organizational banner or support is necessary for the Gospel to go forth.
Justin Edwards
April 11, 2012
Actually, Prem, that is a very good question to ask. Are we, indeed, a nation still under God insomuch that this nation recognizes God’s authority as Sovereign Ruler? I don’t think so. How that applies to me will be something I will be considering.
Frankly, I don’t have time at the moment to engage in such a debate, but the questions are pretty simple and can be answered simplistically in media form.
40 Days states on their website, “to bring together the body of Christ”, then it has a number of people representing different denominations and traditions, some known to be reject the biblical Gospel. So yes, when they make statements like “to bring together the body of Christ” they are making that claim because only those who believe in the Gospel are part of the Body of Christ.
Jenny
April 11, 2012
Justin,
This is such a wonderful article that is very much needed. Thank you for the gentle reminder. God bless you!
-Jenny
Justin Edwards
April 12, 2012
Jenny, thanks so much for your encouraging comment and your participation in the discussion!
premisaac2009
April 11, 2012
Justin, thanks for the interaction, this is really interesting and stimulating.
If you take Psalm 2 seriously, NO nation has EVER recognized God accurately. The very existence of nations is due to an act of Divine judgement(Gen 11). You’ve got your history(not to mention theology) wrong if you think that from God’s viewpoint, America EVER recognized God totally and accurately in a manner that He would accept. Even Israel NEVER fit the bill, not even at Sinai or in the Wilderness.
Nevertheless, nations are authorized by God Himself to punish Evil and do what is Good, according to Romans 13, and though no nation will EVER carry out this task perfectly or even properly, we are ok to join hands with unbelievers/heretics/etc to execute good and punish evil. We are even to pray for our unbelieving authorities. What further authorization do Evangelicals need to linkup with the same people to do what is good? Romans 2 assures us that every unbeliever/heretic knows enough truth about what is good to go to hell, and Christ assures us in the Sermon on the Mount that we, being evil, know how to give good gifts to our children. So it appears there is sufficient grounds to join with unbelievers to actually get something good done
As for where you stand in relation to the US, can I ask another question? Most Christians, myself included, are grateful for the Godly heritage in our Nation. If you were living right this very moment in some overtly non-christian/atheist nation, and there was a religious group attempting to save lives in a clear and present danger, would you aid them? What if some kids (God forbid) fell into a ravine somewhere, and members of a local Mosque having a service, ran out to rescue them.Would you join the effort? And, would you decide differently if the kids they were rescuing were your kids? What if the rescuers were the Arab Red Crescent(the Moslem version of the Red Cross, with the Islamic Symbol of the Crescent instead of the Cross) in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip(yes, the same Hamas as the terrorist group), and they were trying to get the wounded out to a hospital. Would you drive the Ambulance for them if they were short of a driver? What if the wounded were your kids? Would the symbolism and the possibility that passers-by might mistake you for a moslem be sufficient to stop you from doing what is good?
As for where exactly 40 days for life stands, I have another question for you.If you are convinced they are in error, why is it not a better use of your time to contact their leadership privately and concentrate your efforts and prayers at bringing the necessary truth to them? When a believer sees evil in someone, two choices confront him/her: the first is the point the finger and berate the person/group, which arguably, is pretty inexpensive, and easy to do. The second is to say, I can be there for the person(s) as an agent who will bring truth to them in the same way I would want to be corrected. Jesus placed a premium on meeting those who have sinned, in person privately(not over a blog publicly), and attempt to lead them to repentance, and do so repeatedly(Matthew 18:15). That said, dont you think it would be a good idea to give some of your precious time to personally meet with 40 days for life’s leaders, or with others whose actions have so deeply hurt you as you’ve indicated on your blog? Do you have the kind of commitment towards those who commit a sin that Christ is asking in Matt 18:15? Private dialog first, then public. What about Doug Beaumont? Would you consider a private meeting with him to discuss your concern with him?
Justin Edwards
April 11, 2012
Thanks for the response, Prem. Regarding the origins of America, my understanding of history is we were once founded on Jude-Christians principles and the Puritans who colonized the land most certainly believed in the One True God. So at one point in America’s history the Christan God was recognized as Sovereign Ruler, even if imperfectly. It is to that extent I take the position that America is today a pagan nation and “under God” holds know true and meaningfulness that it might once have meant (I have not studied the history of the pledge mind you so I could be off considering its inception).
Again, the issue is not whether the Christian can do good with nonbelievers, but whether the Christian can be yoked in spiritual matters with the nonbeliever. I again refer you to John MacArthur on the Manhattan Declaration.
Finally, as this is a public issue about an ecumenical organization, church discipline does not apply.
http://airocross.com http://thespeaktruthproject.com
Justin Edwards
April 11, 2012
P.S. Prem, you may have missed my earlier questions to you: is the RCC a part of the Body of Christ? Does it teach the unadulterated Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ?
http://airocross.com http://thespeaktruthproject.com
Chuck
April 11, 2012
Consider: If the Scriptures themselves do not command strict adherence to the principle of Sola Scriptura, then doesn’t Sola Scriptura fall under its own weight? (i.e. the philosophical school of Logical Positivism once held to the belief that ‘nothing should be believed that cannot be scientifically proven’…unitl someone said ‘scientifically prove that same statement!’ ; which, of course, they could not and thus they had to disbelieve their own statement.
Justin Edwards
April 12, 2012
Chuck, are you Catholic?
Chuck
April 12, 2012
Short answer: I have been for 2 years now. Long answer: Believe it or not, I used to defend your viewpoint with the same verses in my arguments with Catholics. I was a huge fan of R.C. Sproul and also enjoyed John McArthur too. Roman Catholicism was the absolute LAST place I thought I would ever be. I discovered that what RC actually teaches and believes is quite a bit different than what I thought they did. For me at least, the more difficult Scriptures made more sense from my new perspective (i.e. John 20:22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” and 1John 5:16 “If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.” ,etc.
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Thanks for the reply, Chuck. I will ask you the same questions I asked Theresa: how are your sins (crimes against God) forgiven? What must you do to receive eternal life? Do you have assurance of salvation? In other words, if you died today, do you know with 100% assurance that you would immediately go to heaven?
Chuck
April 13, 2012
Thanks for your time Justin. I want to answer you from Scripture with some verses that speak directly to your questions: “How are my sins forgiven?” –Peter said to them, “ Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” Acts 2:38 “…through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” Acts 10:43 “…the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.” James 5:14-15.
What must you do to receive eternal life? He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” John 3:36 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:54 “…God, who will render to each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.” Romans 2:5-8 “Do you have assurance of salvation? 3 But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself. 4 For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord. 1 Cor 4:3-4 26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; 27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified. 1 Cor 9:26-27
This is certainly not exhaustive, but nevertheless, it is the Word of God and must also be true.
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Thanks again for the reply, Chuck. If I may understand you correctly according to the verses you posted to support your view, do you believe the following:
1) Salvation comes by:
Repentance, baptism, prayer and laying of hands by elders (priests?) in the church, belief in Jesus, partaking in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and good deeds.
2) Do you have assurance of salvation?
No, you do not because only the Lord examines you and will be the judge of your performance on judgment day, according to the actions listed in (1) above and your ability to discipline your body in such a way you would not be disqualified.
Please know I have not intended to misrepresent your view but have inferred these things based on viewing the Scriptures you provided through my understanding of Catholicism. I look forward to hearing back from you, friend.
Chuck
April 14, 2012
Thanks Justin (I don’t know how you find the time to keep up with all these threads : ) ) For now-forget about Catholicism, I’m simply answering your questions with direct quotes from Scripture. When I also believed that the Scriptures taught Sola Fide, I was very quick to ignore or explain away those Scriptures I listed and others like them which did not fit so well into the Sola Fide based understanding of soteriology. What I didn’t realize at the time was that I was treating the Scriptures as a type of buffet line in which I picked and emphasized the ones which best fit MY understanding of soteriology at the expense of the rest of Scripture which also MUST BE TRUE since it is also the Word of God.
Justin Edwards
April 14, 2012
Thanks for your cordial response, Chuck (sometimes I don’t have the time but thankful when I do 🙂 ). I appreciate you sharing more of your heart on the matter, but I don’t see that you answered my question. Do you affirm my inference of your beliefs based on the Scripture you provided? Also, I hope you take a moment to read the new article addressed to Catholics and I welcome any participation from you in the comment section.
Chuck
April 14, 2012
Glad for the chance to clarify Justin. For instance: I believe that “by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast” AND that “…God, who will render to each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life” AND “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life,…” etc.These statements must all be true for they are the Word of God and all have to do with eternal life. I also know that “all our righteousness is as filthy rags” so, how is it (you are probably wondering) that I reconcile these seemingly contradictory beliefs? Here goes: Jesus paid the eternal sin debt that I could never pay by His most glorious Passion and death on the cross. I must have faith in this for “…without faith it is impossible to please Him.” Jesus also tells us that we must abide in Him for without Him we can do nothing. And , yes, I do believe that “sin(s) that lead unto death” 1 John 5 sever us from abiding in Christ as we are again warned in Romans 11 “…But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. ” In a nutshell, my actions demonstrate whether or not my faith is one that abides in Christ thus God, who will judge whether or not I have persevered in doing good, can render unto me eternal life NOT based on my righteousness but based on Christ’s righteousness because He sees me as being in/abiding in Christ. Let’s continue talking about the relationship between faith and works before we go into the other beliefs.
Jenny
April 12, 2012
Chuck,
You may find this article helpful.
http://apprising.org/2011/01/15/john-macarthur-on-sola-scriptura/
Rose Vosburgh
April 12, 2012
Wow! That was a great article,Jenny. I hope he read it. How could the very Word of God Himself not be trusted to be the only true source of truth? What can any man, regardless of how well educated, offer that can be better or wiser or truer than that? Thanks so much for sharing that link.
Chuck
April 12, 2012
Thx Jenny, I did read it but in my interpretation of 2 Tim 3 I don’t think Paul is trying to command Sola Scriptura (esp. in light of 2 Thess 2:15 “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.”) Really, I think that Timothy was probably wondering whether or not to use the Old Testament Scriptures since they might be confusing to the new Christians; especially ones who did not have a Jewish background.
Ultimately, knowing that the Scriptures are the Word of God, how do we determine who has the correct interpretation? People have always quoted Scripture back and forth at each other with each one sincerely believing that they had the correct interpretation. If God did not leave us an authority outside of ourselves to help us interpret the Scriptures correctly, then we will have thousands of different interpretations and as many churches; or, He could have …1 Tim 3:15 “…the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
Brendon Helms
April 11, 2012
Justin,
I think I know the answer to this question, but I want to make sure that I fully understand your position ( I don’t want to straw man you) before me next comment. Would you agree that it is wrong for a Christian to only be concerned with the physical well being of the baby and not also present the gospel to the mother (and father if he is there)? Thanks for your clarification on this.
Devin
April 11, 2012
Justin,
I understand you are a busy man and are doing many things. However you have publicly decided to call out the “40 Days for life” so I am confused as to why you are not willing to defend your views in a public setting against an SES student?
If you do not have time right now then I suggest we plan a debate in the very near future where you can voice your opinions and we can see both views under cross examination and see if your position holds up to biblical and scholarly review.
You have made some serious claims and Melissa, has demonstrated that the group you are associated with and promoted do the same things you said “40 day’s for life” did and called numerous people out by name (Including a whole seminary) and church’s and accused them of being compromisers.
To not be willing to publicly debate this issue but instead sit behind a computer screen and assassinate people and call them out publicly does not represent a biblical worldview.
If you do not have time right now then lets set up a debate in the next few months.
I know there would be numerous students who would love to have an engaging, thoughtful and rational dialog with you.
It is only fair that you give the same people you spoke out against the opportunity to defend themselves in a public setting.
Hope to hear back from you soon on this issue as everyone would LOVE to see a respectful and thoughtful dialog among Christian brothers!
Justin Edwards
April 12, 2012
Devin, I don’t need to defend my views and there does not need to be a public debate. There needs to be repentance per 2 Corinthians 6:14. I will be responding to Melissa later this morning.
Brendon Helms
April 12, 2012
Justin,
If the reason you don’t want to have the debate is because of time that is one thing. However, to call out people publicly and then not be willing to engage with them publicly I find to be very off putting. As Devin said it is easy to sit behind a computer screen. However, public dialogue is much more fruitful and respectful. Further, how do you think you do not have to defend your views? Aren’t we all accountable for any view we assert?
Justin Edwards
April 12, 2012
Brendon, I have never said I am not willing to meet personally, I just do not have time to participate in a formal public debate. I am more than willing to sit down with Melissa and Devin. My views are not what is being rejected to, Scripture is being rejected.
Brendon Helms
April 12, 2012
Justin,
But you had time to post a PUBLIC blog. The only difference I see between a public debate and a public blog is that in the public debate you cannot hide behind a computer screen. How about instead of a debate it be a round table discussion? On a different note I would encourage you not to make statements such as “my views are not what is being rejected, Scripture is being rejected.” This comes across as very arrogant. What is actually being rejected is your interpretation of Scripture.
Justin Edwards
April 12, 2012
Hi Brendon, I have a quick minute to respond to you. Firstly, I do want to thank you for your cordial participation in this discussion. Though we are at disagreement on some matters, I appreciate being able to have a respectful dialogue. Secondly, I do not hide behind a computer screen. I have made clear I am willing to sit down with my brothers and sisters in Christ as brothers and sisters in Christ to rightly divide God’s Word together. I think a lot of that can be done through written communication as we are doing, but am willing to sit down personally if that would be more edifying. A public debate would require preparation time that I do not have. It is all I can do to to keep up with my current responsibilities including engaging in this discussion as I get a minute.
I’m writing this now to let you know I am not ignoring you or anyone else in the discussion. I’m not sure how much, if any, I can catch up with comments today, but I will get to them as time allows. Thanks again for your participation, brother (and for your patience).
Jenny
April 12, 2012
Ecclesiology, soteriology, Christology, whatever you want to call it, I think what Justin is getting to the root of here is simply that the biblical presentation of the gospel is faith by grace in Christ alone = justification and not faith by grace in Christ plus the sacraments plus penance plus obedience and allegiance to the teachings of the church even when the contradict the bible plus devotion to Mary as co-redeemer and Mediator etc = justification. The Bible doesn’t teach classes of sins. The bible doesn’t teach that Mary is the co-redeemer and mediatrix. The Bible doesn’t teach that we are to try and be a “good person.” The Bible doesn’t teach us to pray to the dead. The Bible doesn’t teach that the Pope is the vicar of Christ and the head of the church. These are all manmade traditions not found in the Holy Writ of the Word of God which we hold to be the pure, infallible, trustworthy source for all of life and godliness.
-Jenny
Rose Vosburgh
April 12, 2012
Amen, Jenny! Well said.
Brendon Helms
April 12, 2012
Jenny,
It seems that your problem is that you do not understand theological categories. Have you ever read through a systematic theology? If not you really aren’t in a position to just dismiss the categories. We can examine Roman Catholic and Protestant doctrines on Christology. In that category there is almost complete agreement. Now in terms of Ecclesiology there are significant differences. In soteriology there are significant differences. If Roman Catholics have a proper understanding of Christology or the Trinity it is a fallacy to dismiss that truth just because they are Roman Catholic. Now as I have said all along that does not mean that I must endorse every belief of Roman Catholicism. This is where wisdom and discernment come into place. You will find if you read through the major Protestant scholars that they do endorse Catholic writings where it is appropriate.
Jenny
April 12, 2012
Brendon,
I respectfully disagree. I don’t need to understand systematic theology to understand the biblical gospel and how it is not presented in the teachings and practices of Roman Catholicism.
Sincerely,
Jenny
Brendon Helms
April 12, 2012
But what you are misunderstanding is that you are mixing categories. I agree with you that you do not have to understand systematic theology to understand the gospel. However, because you don’t seem to have an understanding of theology you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. You disagree with Roman Catholics about justification, as do I, so therefore you discount everything concerning Roman Catholics. This is a fallacy. Specifically this is the genetic fallacy. My point is that if you had a better understanding of systematic theology you could learn from Roman Catholics in terms of Christology or the Trinity. In fact Martin Luther and John Calvin never disagreed with the Roman Catholic church on these points. They continued to embrace those points to their deaths.
Michael Coughlin
April 12, 2012
Brendon – Can you apply this to the way God expected the Israelites to seek spiritual understanding?
Think about it – God’s chosen people have never been encouraged to get enlightenment from “non-believers.”
In fact, separation is the general pronouncement, especially concerning worship and ministry.
Agreeing with people who “happen to be right” is not the same as embracing or espousing their beliefs. I can agree with an atheist that lying is wrong – that doesn’t mean I can learn a lot from a atheism. It just means God has allowed this person to believe in something which is also a biblical truth.
Many false religious systems have held to tenets which born again Christians can assent to. But the reason is because they are scriptural truths. In fact, they can no nothing at all without actually “stealing” from the biblical worldview. The irrationality is that they want to use the bible to suit their own means at some times, but reject it or add man’s traditions or reasoning at other times.
The fear of the Lord is the BEGINNING of knowledge (or wisdom). Followers of false religious systems do not have a reverent fear of God, and thus, can only accidentally provide wisdom by God’s grace.
Brendon Helms
April 12, 2012
But it seems to me that you are making the same mistake that many other commentators on this blog have made. It does not matter where truth comes from. Truth is truth. As long as the proposition corresponds correctly to reality the source of that truth is irrelevant. God told the nation of Israel to destroy the nations because in his foreknowledge he knew that Israel would revert to the falsehoods of the nations. However, it does not follow from that that we cannot read Thomas Aquainas, who was a Roman Catholic, on the essence of God to gain a better understanding of who God is. I agree with you fully that we should not worship with unbelievers I find that this is exactly what Paul was talking about in 2 Cor. The Corinthians allowed false teachers into their fellowship and allowed them to spread their false teachings. Paul condemned this because of allowing the false teaching to spread through the church in Corinth. But again it does not follow that the Corinthians could not have talked and learned from the false teachers about any spiritual matter.
I do not know what you mean by “can only accidentally provide wisdom.”
Michael Coughlin
April 12, 2012
Brendon – I do not understand: What mistake am I making?
According to scripture “Thy Word is truth” (John 17:17).
Truth is truth is a useless tautology for the sake of this discussion.
The source of actual truth is irrelevant, I’d agree. I never would assert that it was relevant. My point is that I cannot know anything actually IS truth without God’s Word supporting it.
Again, I am not saying that I could never learn anything from a false believer – what I am saying is that they will never reveal Truth to me outside of what can be gathered from scripture and I certainly won’t be looking there for it.
I appreciate your kind-hearted spirit, Brendon.
nonbelievers “can only accidentally provide wisdom” because they do not have the fear of the Lord, therefore do not have the beginning of knowledge. Spiritual discernment and understanding come from God.
Brendon Helms
April 12, 2012
Michael,
The statement “thy word is truth” is an example of truth. It does not tell me what truth means. I hold to a correspondence theory of truth. By this I understand truth to be “that which corresponds to reality.” When I said truth is truth I was getting at the idea (though apparently in a vague manner) that truth does not depend on its source. Now you claim that “you cannot know anything Is truth without God’s Word supporting it.” How do you know God’s word is truth? If you can only know something is true if God’s word supports then then this is a circular argument.
premisaac2009
April 12, 2012
Justin,
You’re right, I missed seeing that question. I have no problem acknowledging that Catholicism is in error about a host of things, including the true gospel, and there is a reliance on sacraments and mediation by the church, the saints, “Mary”, the infallibility of the Pope, transubstantiation, etc which make me reject their doctrine and their system as a whole. The doctrine is such that believing it will not save you. And therefore if you are not saved, it follows you are not part of the true body of Christ. Although I havent been interfacing with Catholics recently, I have treated them no differently from any other unsaved person when evangelising, and have done my part in pointing out doctrinal error.
Having said that, I don’t think the issue of saving a child’s life falls under the heading of “spiritual matters” as you’ve indicated in your prior response. That’s really the point I was trying to make by giving examples which I did. The purpose of 40 Days for Life is not ecumenism itself – there are variety of other organizations which perpetrate ecumenical theology, and you’d be more on target going after those. Its simply disingenous to deliberately misread why 40 Days for life exists, which is to prevent the murder of the unborn. I agree that statements they’ve made referencing “God”, “the Lord”, “body of Christ”, can be the basis for endless discussion, but you are really missing the boat if you think their real purpose is ecumenism. You’re picking up on something that is relatively minor in its context – (and I am not saying that the issue of defining the body of Christ is minor – just that in the overall context of 40 Days for life’s actual work, it is not what their reason for existence is). And this is why I think it would be great for you to enter into respectful open diaolog with the leaders of 40 Days for Life, and push them, not to stop their pro-life efforts, but perhaps to rephrase what they say about spiritual things.
I am quite disappointed with your overall refusal to make personal contact with those you disagree. It seems to me you are saying, “I refuse to meet and discuss things PUBLICLY” and at the same time saying “I refuse to meet and discuss things PRIVATELY”. I see you’ve stated reasons in each case. It just seems that you are avoiding personal, relational contact, and that is truly disappointing. Perhaps you are failing to see that God can give you a ministry to those with whom you disagree. But you are dismissive of such requests.
So if you, Devin, Melissa, Doug Beaumont, and atleast some people in 40 Days for Life, and I myself are all part of the Body of Christ, and everyone except you is in error, it is still a matter of church discipline, is it not? Matt 18:15 begins at the level of one believer going to another believer, is it not? It only then escalates to involving church leaders. I dont think you’ve proven why this verse does not apply to you. It seems you just lack committment to come and speak to us. I do hope you will change your mind on this, as it seems to me when it comes to lengthy blog responses, you seem to have whatever time it takes!
P.S., I would still like responses to the 2 questions on hypothetical situations in my previous email – I want to know if you think being publicly misunderstood as to your spiritual beliefs is worthwhile under any circumstances at all – in fact, what if it was a group of Catholics trying to rescue children fallen down a mountain side in Ashevill or Boone, would you assist them? What if the children were your own?
Justin Edwards
April 12, 2012
Prem, if the RCC is not part of the Body of Christ, how do you justify doing ministry with an apostate religion in the name of God, in violation of 2 Corinthians 6:14? I am not missing the boat at all, brother.
As I just told Brendon, I am more than willing to sit down with Devin and Melissa, and yourself, but at the end of the day, 40 Days for Life is a national, ecumenical organization and no Christian should be a part of it for reasons stated in the article. The article was not written specifically to Melissa and Devin, but for all evangelicals participating in 40 Days. My position has clearly been laid out here for all to see, and I am willing to answer questions to that end. Perhaps it would be a better use of your time if you study the matter further. You might find the link I gave to Melissa to John MacArthur’s series on 2 Corinthians 6:14 helpful.
Of course I would assist a group of Catholics in rescuing children. If you cannot see the difference in what I have stated in this article and your example, then you really do need to study 2 Corinthians 6:14. I plan on doing this myself in MacArthur’s series and would love for you to join me as well.
Theresa Williams
April 12, 2012
I was told about this article yesterday. I’ve read through the comments and have just one thing to add….Matthew 7:1-5 “Stop Judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.”
Justin Edwards
April 12, 2012
Hi Theresa, thanks for the comment. I have a Scripture to add as well:
“…Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” – 1 Corinthians 5:6-12
Now, the Scripture you posted and the Scripture I posted would seem to contradict each other, yes? How is it they don’t contradict since God’s Word is infallible? What is the context of Matthew 7:1-5?
Theresa Williams
April 12, 2012
we can sit and throw scripture around til next Tuesday, but here’s the bottom line. I am a cradle Catholic. What I am reading here is falsehood being spoken by people who do not know our Faith. So in a nutshell, here goes..
.We believe that Jesus Christ is the only son of God, begotten of the Father and He was born of the Virgin Mary. He and he alone is the way to the Father. “No one goes to the Father except through me” The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ONE GOD…. We honor Mary as the Blessed Mother of Jesus….we DO NOT believe she is co-redemptorist with Christ. We honor her for being the vessel of Salvation in bearing Jesus in her womb. While he hung on the cross, Jesus said to John, “behold your mother” and to his mother he said “woman behold your son” So yes we give her honor as the one who can pray consistently to her son for our souls and salvation.
We DO NOT pray to idols, statues etc. We honor those who have done Christ’s work here on earth. Much the same way a portrait of a president would grace the halls of the White House. Statues are a focal point in prayer. If I ask you to pray for me for healing would you not pray for me? If I pray to a Saint and ask them to pray for me, they will continue to pray to the Lord on my behalf.
The Lord Jesus appointed his Apostles as the first priests and church. The Lord Jesus instituted our sacrament of Confession/ reconciliation to his Apostles. He stated to them, “forgive men’s sins. those you have forgiven will be forgiven and those you have bound will be held bound”. We go to Confession to reconcile our sinfulness and ask for forgiveness not to just God, but when we sin we must reconcile ourselves to each other.
During Jesus’ ministry he spoke to the crowds and said “Unless you eat of the flesh of God, you can not have life with in you…for my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink”…At the Last Supper, Christ took bread, blessed it and said take this all of you and eat it…this IS my Body which will be given up for you…he also took the cup, blessed it and said take this all of you and drink from it, this IS the cup of my blood shed you and for many so that sins may be forgiven…do this in Memory of me”…This IS Transubstantiation….out of Christ’s own mouth….This was God’s new covenant with man,,,,His Son, was fully Divine and Fully human…suffered for our sins and was crucified died and was buried…on the 3rd day he rose from the Dead and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty….
I do not understand how you or anyone would believe that I or any other Catholic would be damned to Hell for following Christ’s words…it is sad that our faith has been under fire from Politicians, the Media, and others….but to have “Fellow Christians” insult us and judge us is shameful.
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Theresa, how are your sins (crimes against God) forgiven? What must you do to receive eternal life? Do you have assurance of salvation? In other words, if you died today, do you know with 100% assurance that you would immediately go to heaven?
Michael Coughlin
April 12, 2012
Theresa – It appears that the point you are trying to make is not to judge. Let me point out two potential issues I see and the logical conclusion.
1) By simply posting this and implying that someone (I assume Justin) is making a mistake by judging, you are, in fact judging him. To judge is to make a qualification based upon a standard of righteousness. If you truly believe we should never judge, then please stop doing so yourself, right? Of course, no one truly thinks that.
2) The quote you posted by Jesus includes the line ” then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye” — In fact, this is a clear command to help others who are sinning or making some kind of mistake. The qualification being that you need to know how to eliminate the same sin from your own life.
In conclusion, I think the point is that we cannot help but avoid judging. The question is how ought we judge? Judge with righteous judgment is what the Bible declares. It is important to note that that is exactly how we help each other. Those who have had victory in their lives help those earlier on the path, if you will.
Paul Washer says when people tell him “judge not lest ye be judged” that he replies, “twist not scripture lest ye be like Satan.”
I certainly hope your desire is to be like Christ. If you are not born-again, I trust you will not understand most of this. If that is the case, I encourage you to search the scriptures to see what Christ did for sinners like you and me. Demons believe, but they tremble; my hope is that you will put you full faith and hope in Christ as Lord and Savior and be justified by grace through faith alone. If you are born-again, I hope you will see that this is, in fact, what the Spirit bears witness to in your heart through His Holy Scriptures and that you will come to a closer knowledge of our glorious God.
Theresa Williams
April 12, 2012
so I am akin to Satan because I should be the one to be judged by you or others?
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Michael, thank you for explaining Matthew 7:1-5 for Theresa. God bless you, brother.
Brendon Helms
April 12, 2012
Theresa,
Though there is much disagreement on this blog I believe you are misunderstanding this passage. Notice the very last verse. It says “then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.” This is not saying do not judge, but it is telling us how to do it properly. If we remove the sin from our own life (the mean in our own eye) then we will be able to help our brothers and sisters remove the sin (splinter in their eye) from their own life. Now I agree with you that we should not judge others in an eternal sense (that is for God alone), but in terms of sin and misunderstanding of Scripture it seems that Jesus endorses it (if done properly). But of course we need to be careful to not do this out of pride and superiority, which is always a temptation when correcting others.
Theresa Williams
April 12, 2012
I am not stating this out of pride or superiority,,,,I am posting this because I believe the Catholic Faith is being attacked and that somehow now I am the one who should be judged and corrected….
Brendon Helms
April 12, 2012
Theresa,
I was not in any way saying that you were being prideful or acting superior to others. That comment was really as a caution to all of us. If you took my comment as an attack on you I do apologize. In no way was that directed to you. I would agree with you that there has been an element of attacking the Catholic faith here. Some have been more antagonistic than others. Myself I can say that I have tried by best to be balanced in this. Yes there are points that I disagree with the Roman Catholic Church over and I believe that those issues are quite serious. However, I have also attempted to demonstrate that there are other areas in which I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is accurate and truthful in its understanding of reality. Again by only point with you is that in Matthew 7 Jesus is not saying do not judge, but is actually telling us how to judge.
Michael Coughlin
April 12, 2012
Yes, Theresa – if you are Catholic and believe the teachings of the Catholic church then you have what is called a dead faith. You believe many truthful things about God and Christ (like the pharisees who ordered His crucifixion), but you have not come to a point in your life where you have become willing to shed your own self-righteousness and put on His.
In your comment, you reference transubstantiation – why not read all of John 6 instead of just the part that supports your argument? Jesus follows the entire dissertation with a statement concerning the uselessness of the flesh. John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
So you can argue all day that you like Catholicism. That is your choice. I am aware that you love your religion and as you stated “from the cradle.” John 1:13 states “who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” So it is not your will or your bloodline or what you do that can save you, only God.
Go ahead, rely on your own works of righteousness to save you. Call Jesus Lord all you want as well, read Matthew 7:21-23 to find out about many people who call Him Lord and do works in His name.
But you cannot rationally call us all Christians. Your own religion which you defend declares that anyone who believes that justification is by grace through faith alone apart from works is accursed. You are in error to call me your brother since I clearly deny the catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, atonement and baptism. So you must decide, are you truly ready to defend your faith?
I suggest reading Ephesians where Paul state it is by grace you are saved through faith, not of yourselves lest any man should boast. I fear for your soul and I love you as a fellow sinner in need of a Savior – and I hate the false religious system which has enslaved you.
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Brendon, thanks also for explaining Matthew 7:1-5 for Theresa. It is also important to consider verse 6:
Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.
It takes discernment and judging to determine, by Jesus’ words, what are “dogs and pigs”. These are those who reject, oppose, mock, or get angry after hearing the Gospel truth, and we are not to continue giving the precious truth to these who would trample on it.
Brendon Helms
April 12, 2012
Justin,
I am gathering from this discussion that one of your problems with evangelicals working with Catholics in ministry related work is that either there is no sharing of the gospel or that their is a mixed message being presented concerning the gospel. Is this a correct analysis or have I misunderstood you?
Michael Coughlin
April 12, 2012
I think that is the point, Brendon, yes. I don’t think Justin has said he couldn’t dig a ditch with a non-believer. Let’s forget the word “Catholic” for a minute. “Catholic” in this discusssion simply represents any God-hating sinner who is not born again, a child of the devil, if you apply John 8:44 universally.
You shall not yoke with unbelievers. You cannot be born again and participate in a group which purports to espouse a “like faith” and then openly included “unlike faiths.” That confuses people to whom you are ministering, and with whom you are ministering.
My heart aches for the people who will spend their lives trying to end abortion, in the name of Christ or any other, who will stand before God and told to depart from Him for their iniquity. Knowing how much good so many people will do and God will see it as filthy rags and punish them for eternity in hellfire! This brings me great sorrow and causes me to want to do nothing which could compromise their understanding of their standing before God.
If someone believes that the Catholic faith is not a different (thus false) religion, then that is a completely different discussion altogether where we need to agree to be rational. If people believe two contradictory ideas can both be true, then we cannot even discuss anything rationally.
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Amen and very well said, Michael.
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Brendon, the problem with evangelicals working with Catholics under the banner of God or the Gospel gives the impression from those involved that they are unified in the Body of Christ. Roman Catholicism is an idolatrous false religion and Christians must not accept it as orthodox Christianity for the sake of sound doctrine, Gospel purity, and to not be a stumbling block for infant Christians, Catholics, and other lost people.
Brendon Helms
April 12, 2012
Well my point in asking the question is this. In Luke 17 we see Jesus heal 10 lepers. He only heals them. He does not mention anything spiritual at all. Now it seems the very life of Jesus was a ministry to the Kingdom of God. There was not a moment of his life that this was not his primary task. Yet here Jesus only heals. So it seems that if we are going to say that we fail in ministering only to the physical needs then likewise Jesus failed here as well. So it seems that I can minister at an abortion clinic, under the banner of faith, without presenting the gospel and this not be considered wrong. So I feel that for Justin, and if you are endorsing his view point, to be consistent he must agree that either: 1.) Jesus was wrong for doing this or 2.) It is acceptable to not present the gospel while working under the banner of faith to meet a physical problem.
I agree with you completely about two contradictory idea both being true. This clearly cannot be the case as it violates the second law of logic. I have never said that such a thing is possible.
Michael Coughlin
April 12, 2012
Brendon – I understand your point. My quick and easy response is that the great commission hadn’t been commanded yet and Jesus had a specific plan and purpose which needed to be fulfilled and the timing of the event you describe was done perfectly by Christ. Jesus was never wrong.
It is, in fact acceptable, to help people and not end up presenting the gospel to them. That isn’t the point of the article though. The point is about yoking with nonbelievers in what is clearly a ministerial endeavor which promotes faith based help.
To stand alongside a person in the name of the Christian faith who is not a Christian is the sin. I can’t counsel a person who needs Christ and be teamed up with someone who cannot show them Christ for a third purpose. That doesn’t mean I can’t bandage a wound, or give someone food in love…but to be a part of a group which publicly claims to share faith with nonbelievers is the problem.
I don’t think you can minister at an abortion clinic under the banner of faith without sharing the gospel. In fact, I think the gospel is the ONLY cure for abortion and to avoid it, would be to miss the point entirely and to deny the power of God to save people, heal people and sanctify them by instead using your own “cleverly devised” arguments to sway people’s opinions. Let that not be so for any true follower of Christ. If He isn’t enough, then nothing we can offer is.
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Brendon, one can minister to someone without necessarily giving them the Gospel, but it must be understood that meeting tangible needs is not the Gospel. In other words, there is no such thing as “living the Gospel” – the Gospel (Good News) is a proclamation of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Our good works, therefore, must be in the context of sharing the Gospel and the fruitful implications of the Gospel in our own lives, even if we don’t actually get the opportunity to share the Gospel with the individual. We can’t “be the Gospel”, but we can love people because of how the Gospel has changed us from within by the Holy Spirit.
Brendon Helms
April 12, 2012
Michael,
I want to start by saying I appreciate the dialogue. Your comments are refreshingly rationale and informed. I am glad we both agree that Jesus was never wrong and that it is acceptable to deal with physical problems while not dealing with the spiritual. Now I find that the Great Commission not being given yet was irrelevant. The Great Commission was commanded by Jesus, not for Jesus. That being said I think since Jesus never made a mistake then it follows that one can operate under the banner of ministry without presenting the gospel. Now I want to be clear I am not saying that I should not present the gospel. Just that one can operate under the banner of a ministry and not be doing wrong without presenting the gospel.
Now in terms of the unequally yoked. I made a comment above that went unanswered. With all the comments on this blog I am not surprised. The comment was made that we could work with unbelievers in a non religious context. But when we enter into a religious context we cannot work with them because that would mean we are unequally yoked. My question was (the one that went unanswered) from that definition of unequally yoked does it not follow that Paul was unequally yoked with Jewish unbelievers in Acts 21? Now I am not referring to the 4 individuals that Paul entered the temple with. What I referring to is the observation that Paul entered the Jewish temple which was run by unbelieving Jewish leaders. Took part in a religious ceremony that would have been conducted by Jewish leaders. At no point do we see Paul object to this. He does not condemn the Jewish leaders here. He simply engages in a religious act which is being carried out under the supervision of Jewish religious leaders. From this I feel we are forced to conclude one of two things. 1.) Either Paul was sinful for this action because he was unequally yoked with the Jewish leaders in this instance or 2.) unequally yoked does not simply mean engaging in any religious activity with an unbeliever.
In terms of using human arguments to convince people not to have an abortion I think Paul’s statement in Philippians 1 applies here. Paul states that he presents the gospel out of love, but others do so out of rivalry. But he does not care about their motives. What he cares about is that the gospel is presented. Now clearly this is not a direct application. But I think a general principle can be brought out of this. If the life is saved it does not matter how it was saved. I have personally spoken with many people who have reported saving the life of a child from using arguments and not the gospel. So it seems that God is working through those arguments.
The last thing I want to ask and this is somewhat taking the conversation in a different direction, but I was curious about something. You stated that the only cure for abortion is the gospel. So it seems to me that you believe that if (I know this isn’t possible) people would just accept the gospel then the abortion problem would go away. But what about those women who are saved who have abortions? It seems that in certain cases the gospel is not enough the cure abortion. Thoughts on this?
I am going to have to take a break from the conversation for a little while. My wife and I are hosting a cookout this evening and I have some reading for classes that I need to get done. Hopefully we can continue this dialogue. I look forward to your responses.
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Brendon, with regards to your later question, my position is that a person professing Christ who has an abortion has given significant evidence they are not a Christian at all. Abortion is premeditated murder, so unless a person is extremely ignorant and has been deceived as to what abortion is (and perhaps they are a new Christian), I would find it extremely rare, if not impossible, for a born again believer to murder their baby. We must confront such persons, in love, to examine themselves whether they are in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5, 1 John).
Brendon Helms
April 13, 2012
Justin,
I am guessing that you hold to this because you also endorse Lordship Salvation. However, even if one endoreses Lordship Salvation there is no reason that a woman having one abortion conflicts with that position. Even MacArthur would agree with that. However, from my experience I think the evidence points to the fact that many Christian women have abortions. My knowledge off this comes from a friend who is a Christian counselor. This individual has confirmed that he has seen counseled many Christian women who has abortions.
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Brendon, I do believe the Bible clearly teaches what is known as “Lordship salvation.” May I ask you – how do you and how does the Christian counselor know these women are/were saved? As to a Christian having one abortion, I do not deny it is possible, but believe it to be extremely rare and evidence one may not be saved at all. Thus the exhortation to examine oneself.
Brendon Helms
April 13, 2012
Justin,
I believe they are saved on the word of my friend. He believes they are saved because they clearly understand the gospel and say that they have faith in that alone. If I am to doubt their salvation I assume I can doubt the salvation of anyone. I think that the only reason to doubt their salvation is if I endorse the Lordship position which I do not. Now I don’t think this is the time to debate that issue, but I have no problem granting that a person can be truly saved and live a life of sin. It would be a very sad and heart breaking situation, but I believe it does happen.
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Thanks for the reply, Brendon. I understand and appreciate putting forth this is not the place to debate Lordship Salvation (although I do welcome a discussion on the LS page here on the blog). I will briefly rebut your position with 1 John 3:1-10 and allow the reader here to examine this passage (all of 1 John is encouraged). I would also say that church discipline cannot possibly be carried out under your understanding of “carnal Christianity” since someone’s faith cannot be questioned simply because they have made a profession.
Brendon Helms
April 13, 2012
Likewise, I would point people to read the work of Hodges to refute the Lordship position and I would also refer people to MacArthur’s comments on 1 Peter 1 in his New Testament Commentary. I disagree with you regarding church discipline. I see no reason under the Free Grace position that church discipline cannot be administered. But since we both agree this topic is not related to this current topic of the blog I think it is best to stop this specific conversation.
Rose Vosburgh
April 13, 2012
“Lordship salvation”…now does that mean that as Christians we recognize that Jesus is not just our Saviour but also our Lord? Is there any other kind of salvation? How can one be a Christian if Jesus is not recognized as Lord? How can He truly be your Savior if He is not your Lord also? I would suggest to you that these ‘Christian” women who are having abortions are probably some of the false converts that are filling up so many of our seeker friendly churches today. Sure they attend church each week and even talk a good talk of faith. But the real proof that someone is saved is a living, active faith in Christ which is worked out daily in obedience to Him.Though we are no longer bound by the Law, we seek now more than ever to obey it, not to win God’s approval but out of love for the Lord. What the counselor is seeing is false converts,Brendon. No true Christian, unless ignorant or new in the faith, could do such a vile thing if Jesus is truly their Lord. Perhaps if one is back-slidden… but I am not sure there is such a thing as a back-slidden Christian. False convert is probably what a person is if there is no fruit of salvation. At least we are valid in questioning the salvation of such a person. I would ask that counselor what evidence do you have that these women who are having abortions are true Christians. Praying a prayer, walking an aisle, signing a card, ‘accepting Jesus’ does not necessarily make one a Christian. Sadly, though, today many people think it does. This counselor must be one of them.
Brendon Helms
April 13, 2012
Rose,
There is serious disagreement among evangelical scholars on this issue. There is a major debate between what is called Lordship Salvation and Free Grace. For those that do not hold to Lordship Salvation, like myself, we believe that a true Christian can live a life of sin. I don’t think this is the time for the debate. But if you want to see both sides you can read MacArthur who supports Lordship and Zane Hodges who supports Free Grace.
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Yes, I recommend “The Gospel According to Jesus“.
Rose Vosburgh
April 13, 2012
Thanks for the references. I will check it out.
K. Michaels
April 12, 2012
Well, all I can say is that Satan is having a field day with this blog! What is the definition of a Christian? Protestants AND Catholics believe in God, and they believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, who has died to save us from our sins. Why make all this more complicated than it needs to be. WWJD? What would Jesus do? Would he tell protestants to not work together with Catholics and people of any or no faith to combat the evil of abortion? Who is the real winner out of all the debate going on in this blog? Is it the protestants? The catholics? The innocent who are being brutally murdered day in and day out in this country and around the world? The only winner in this whole senseless debate is Satan.
Theresa Williams
April 12, 2012
well said K. Michaels…I think I am done with these closed minded people…I as a Catholic have apparently been “led astray” and I guess I am “going to Hell” because I am Catholic….Satan truly is enjoying this division…God Bless you all…I will pray for you…because you really could use some true enlightening….
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Thanks for commenting, K. Michaels. I will simply direct you to my Catholicism page should you desire to understand the eternal differences between biblical Christianity and Roman Catholicism. As to whether Jesus would tell Christians and Catholics to not work together under the banner of faith, He did in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.
Deb
April 12, 2012
Matthew 22:34-40 – Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and the greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
I find it very sad that there is so much hatred, anger, and misinformation regarding a particular faith, on a site the claims to be Christian. The truth about the Catholic Church is available, to all who seek it. By perpetuating your distortion of Catholicism, you are truly playing into the hands of Satan.
I urge you to read and reread the above scripture, and pray for the Holy Spirit to fill you with his wisdom, knowledge, and courage to see and to seek the truth.
IN HIS TIGHT GRIP..and lovin it!
April 12, 2012
St. John 15:
“This I command you: love one another.
“If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first.
If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you.
Remember the word I spoke to you, ‘No slave is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.
And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me.
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but as it is they have no excuse for their sin.
Whoever hates me also hates my Father.
If I had not done works among them that no one else ever did, they would not have sin; but as it is, they have seen and hated both me and my Father.
But in order that the word written in their law might be fulfilled, ‘They hated me without cause.’
“When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.”
This blog propagates division and hatred. To call the Roman Catholic Church a “dead” religion is ignorant and fosters malevolence. Careful, extreme protestants, …you are making ‘gods’ of yourselves judging Roman Catholics! If you are hoping to “save” any Catholics from her “unbiblical traditions” by your discussions and “Christian witness” on this discussion board, you have failed.
Justin Edwards
April 12, 2012
Hi IN HIS TIGHT GRIP, I appreciate you taking the time to comment here. There are many comments I have yet to get to, but I wanted to take a minute to respond to you because you have clearly been hurt by some things you have read. I know it has not been my intention to hurt anybody with the content of this article or subsequent discussion, especially Catholics. I fail to see any type of hatred or division or extremity from any Christians posting here. There has been discussion about the errors and heresies of the RCC, but not even this is spoken with malignity but from love – love for the truth and love for those who are in this religious system.
I don’t expect you to agree with these assertions since you are Catholic, but I would like you to know I care for you and love you even though I do not know you. I also want you to know I will be writing another article in the near future that will be addressed to Catholics so you might see more of where I (and all Christians who love Jesus, the Gospel, and the lost) are coming from. In the meantime, I challenge you (and all Catholics following this article) to go through the resources on my Catholicism page. There, you will see the vast, eternal differences between biblical Christianity and Roman Catholicism. I don’t share this with you to condemn you, judge you, or hate you, but because I love you and care for you because of God’s grace and demonstrated love through the finished work and person of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Simply put – love speaks the truth, in love. I hope to share more soon. Thanks again for your time.
Hebrews 8-10:25,
Justin
Deb
April 12, 2012
Justin,
to keep repeating falsehoods about the Catholic Church is not speaking in love. You can delude yourself and others like you, but that does not change the fact that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior.
By most of the comments by you and your supporters, I would say none of you truly know the meaning of love as taught by my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Perhaps revisiting 1 Corinthians 13, and praying for the Holy Spirit to open your minds and hearts, you will see the truth that only comes from truly knowing Jesus!
I will continue to pray for you, and other well meaning, but misguided souls, such as yourself.
May you someday know the true love, peace and joy that only comes from knowing Jesus!
Kelli O
April 12, 2012
In supporting the sentiments of K. Michaels and Deb, I too would have to look at the bigger picture here. Why, regardless of the organization, are we finding ourselves at an abortion clinic? To do Jesus’ mission of his public ministry: to save souls (whether by saving a life of an unborn and hopefully the soul of a distressed woman making a desperate decision). Quite honestly, who cares if those standing there besides us are Jewish, Buddhists, Hindu or the many Christian faiths; all are vehicles to how we worship and celebrate our love of our God and His fellow creation: humanity. That is what we call unity and solidarity. There will never be peace in this world if the Pharisee-type mentality of this blog continues.
As K. Michaels indicated, “What Would Jesus Do?” I can guarantee from reading scripture that Jesus did not disassociate himself, a Jew, from non-Jews. Oh forgive me, but did he not sit and have the longest dialogue in the Bible with a Samaritan woman; a woman who was alienated from her own community for her sinful ways? But yet she had a thirst for the “living water” Jesus talked about? Did Jesus say “nevermind, you are a Samaritan and you are not worthy?” Absolutely not.
Launching Jesus’ public ministry, his first activism was his most profound preaching, the Sermon on the Mount (Beatitudes). Oh, once again, how foolish am I to understand that he was talking to all shedding light on the importance of our gracious God of bringing together all of humanity and to have a glimmer of what God’s community should be: Jesus’ message of humility, charity and loving one another (regardless).
The author of this blog, I would have to question his motive. Is it really about “preaching the Gospel” or did I miss something? I thought we as Christians were to not only preach the Gospel, but live it. I am not getting that message in this article and feel the viewpoint of Biblical-based activism is hindering the objective of his and others’ presence of being involved in the Pro-Life movement to begin with.
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Kelli, thanks for commenting but, unfortunately, you have exemplified the very danger of the ecumenism in 40 Days for Life and further substantiate the warnings in the article. There is only one Christian faith, and anyone outside it, including Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and all stripes of false religion, stands under the condemnation of God because they have yet to put their faith alone in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of their sins. Any type of “worship” by non-Christians is vanity and falls on deaf ears to God.
Jesus’ message is the following: Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. – Luke 24:45-47
This preaching of the Gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe (Romans 1:16), is the means God uses to bring Life to its hearers. Jesus also said in John 14:6, I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. And Paul in Acts 17:29:31, Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but know he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.
So Kelli, God has called you to repent from the god you have formed in your own image and crafted in your mind, and turn to the One True God of Scripture by putting your faith alone in Christ alone, trusting in His finished work on the cross and His glorious resurrection from the dead. Turn from you idol to Jesus to serve the living and true God (1 Thessalonians 1:9). As Jesus said, If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
Please watch this video, Kelli – it is best news, or perhaps the worst news, you will ever hear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXOWyjB7d24
Devin
April 12, 2012
[Moderator edit: this comment has been edited to protect the privacy of the doctors mentioned]
Justin,
In response to Mellissa’s, comments where we have demonstrated that you are involved with a group that has Catholics on staff and doing outreach with “priests for life” which according to you is yoking with non-believers and makes one a compromiser and disobedient to the gospel you said
“The two main points you have tried to make about the writing of this article is that it “exposes” that I am either a “compromiser of the truth” and that I did not do my research before writing the article. Neither is true.”
1-That you are a compromiser of truth
This is applying your own definition to what being a compromiser is, and as we will see that by your definition you would be a compromiser of truth
2-You did not do your research before writing the article
As we will see this is also true. Had you done your research you would have already known that the group you promoted has “compromisers” in its ranks.
Lets start with the first point that you claim is not true.
You said
” In a previous comment I said with regards to my researching C4L as a Gospel-centered ministry that they have “clear mission objectives on the website, their statement of faith, a requirement to sign the SoF before preaching on the mic, my conversations with those in the ministry testifying to genuine relationships with Jesus Christ, and my observations of the Gospel-centered ministry work taking place on the sidewalk.”
1-This is simply not true. Melissa has contacted Dr. _____ who is on the leadership team (so I trust what he is saying is true) and he said that C4L had no problem whatsoever working with Catholics, nor did they have a problem with them being on the microphone.
The fact that you did not see anybody that was a Catholic on the mic is completely irrelevant. The fact is that we contacted Dr. ______ who is on the leadership team and he told us they have no problem working with Catholics, nor do they have a problem letting Catholics on the mic.
Are you saying that Dr. _____ who again, is on the leadership team is wrong about this? Please answer this question publicly so we can understand your position.
The fact you did not know this demonstrates you did NOT do your research and the fact you were ignorant or not aware of it does not change the fact that the group you promoted DOES work with Catholics, and by your definition you ARE a compromiser of truth. The fact that you did not know this does not change the fact that they work with Catholics and let then on the mic and thus by your definition you are a compromiser and did NOT do your research
Still in regards to the first point you said
“I can in good conscience say I did do my due diligence to the best of my ability, yet I am willing to concede I did not learn of everything possible to know about the ministry. This has been a lesson for me to make sure I ask the right questions when deciding to partner with any ministry so to make the best informed decision, but this does not make me a hypocrite.”
You should have learned about it if you have such strong feelings. I am not part of your group yet I know! It is not a secret and numerous people know that they have staff members who are Catholic and also plan to have an outreach this summer with Catholic organizations.
I am glad it is a lesson for you and the fact you did not know this does prove our first point which is you did not do your research.
Now you said this does not make you a hypocrite. I could agree with that, but it still proves our first point which is you did not do your research. However, now you know and it has been shown to you publicly. If you CONTINUE to stay in this group knowing that they have staff on leadership who are Catholic and have an outreach planned this summer with Catholics and one of the leaders in your group I know for a F
ACT supports “priests for life”
Which we know is a Catholic ministry, then you would ABSOLUTLEY be a hypocrite. I think we have a right to know where you stand. You have been presented this information so you can not claim ignorance. Are you going to stand by your convictions?
The fact that now you know the group you are with has Catholics on staff and there are leaders who will be doing an outreach with Catholics this summer will you also call them compromisers of truth and write a blog about how they are disobedient to the gospel?
If not then you are a hypocrite for blasting 40 days for life and staying with your group.
Everybody is watching this and I feel like your characte and integrity is on the line. Are you going to leave the group or are you going to stay? Please answer this question publicly.
Next you said
“Concerning Dr. _____’s family, the only comment I will make is that there is no indication that Mrs. _____ is Catholic on the website, or that Dr. ______ is associated with Priests for Life.
I do not know anything about Dr. ______ other than he is listed as a medical doctor in the network.
Lisa Bradle is a “staff member”, which I assume to mean she is a paid employee of Monroe HELP. Monroe HELP gives no indication that they are ecumenical and make clear in their foundations page they are submitted to the Lordship of Christ as an evangelistic arm in the church in obedience to the Great Commission.
I have yet to completely understand the summer event that will include OSA and Frank Pavone.”
So this whole statement you are just pleading ignorance. However it does not change the facts! The group you are with has Catholics on staff and on the leadership as well as medical advisers for ‘priests for life” which would be working with Catholics.
It is amazing to me that you will not humble yourself and admit that you did NOT do your research and think that you should get a pass because you “tried your best”>
This stuff is not hidden or a secret. I am not even part of your group and I knew all this. And now that you know this information are you going to continue to stay with this group or are you going to compromise your convictions and be a hypocrite? Please answer this question.
So for points one and two, we have demonstrated you did not do your research and have just plead ignorance for a defense which is fine, but you cant plead ignorance to all this and at the same time claim you did your research. Again this is all information that is public and you could have EASILY gotten had you done your research.
As far as the second point about you being a compromiser, the fact you did not know this stuff does not change the fact you have worked with a group that by your definition is disobedient to the gospel and are compromisers. Again, ignorance does not change the fact you still worked with a group that does outreach’s with Catholics, Doctors that are advisors for Catholic groups and according to the leadership allow Catholics to get on the mic.
So you did NOT do your research as has been demonstrated and you worked with them for months (And are still with them to my knowledge) showing that both points Melissa was making are both in fact true!
Lastly you said
“When I have gathered all the information I need to make an informed and wise decision based on the whole counsel of God, I will do the right thing to stand by my convictions according to God’s Word.”
Everyone is watching and you need to publicly address this issue and either
1-Change your stance on Protestants and Catholics working together in which case you owe many people an apology for calling people out and blasting a whole seminary.
2-You need to publicly rebuke the group you are with and should write a blog calling out people in the organization you are with and tell them they are disobedient to the gospel and compromisers.
I EAGERLY await your response!
I appreciate the dialog and I want you to know that this is not personal and I hope to get to know you better and I think we could be good friends.
As far as your statements about 40 days for life, your objections have been answered already by Prem and Brendon, and thus I am not going to write another response. There are already 130 comments addressing the issues you brought up.
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Hey Devin, I replied through email last night but apparently it did not go through. Here is the message I sent in regards to your last comment:
“Devin,
Though I cannot respond to your comment in full at the moment, I will not be responding until you personally answer questions 1, 2, and 3. Thank you.”
Here are questions again for your convenience:
1) Is the RCC part of the Body of Christ?
2) Does the RCC teach the unadulterated Gospel of Jesus Christ?
3) If you answer no to both questions, how do you justify praying and fasting and doing ministry work in the name of God with people of other religions when God has clearly said not to do so?
gracealone1
April 12, 2012
Somebody please tell me which pope recanted the anathema pronounced on all those who believe that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in CHRIST alone? Please provide name of pope, date and location from which statement was issued. If there was (or ever is) such a recantation, then the originating pope would be considered in error by the pope issuing such a statement. Or would it be the pope issuing the recantation that would be in error? Doesn’t matter, the catholic “faith” is no faith at all, but a system of lies built around controlling it’s followers through fear of not doing enough “good works” to warrant entrance into the presence of the glory of God thereby causing untold guilt for not measuring up to standards set by a sinfilled man. Your so-called faith is not based on the infallible WORD OF GOD, but a sinfilled man who lays claim to infallibility, or has the current pope decided he is fallible yet?
You make your arguments so sweet and nice that countless souls fall for your lies, half truths, and smooth talk. But what you defend is a lie straight from the pit of hell, it’s author is the father of lies (Satan himself) and you are a child of that father. It’s time to repent, humble yourself before Almighty God and seek His forgiveness. He will not allow you to mock Him forever. Either Jesus Christ ALONE is your Savior without all the catholic trappings,trickery and lies or you will stand before Him with no righteous whatsoever, no hope of escaping eternal damnation and a spot reserved for you in the lake of fire.
Time to repent.
Rose Vosburgh
April 13, 2012
” the catholic “faith” is no faith at all, but a system of lies built around controlling it’s followers through fear of not doing enough “good works” to warrant entrance into the presence of the glory of God thereby causing untold guilt for not measuring up to standards set by a sinfilled man. Your so-called faith is not based on the infallible WORD OF GOD, but a sinfilled man.”
Well spoken! The Catholics who have come on here complaining of how judgmental and unloving we are missing the fact that real love confronts error….it tells the truth even when it hurts. I am so glad and praise God every day that I was delivered out of Catholicism. It was truly a miracle as I was pretty self righteous, believing I was earning my way to heaven by keeping all the Catholic rituals. There are many, many problems with the Catholic church, but the main one and most damning to souls is their refusal to accept that salvation is by Christ alone by faith alone. That is the core of the true Christian faith. It is what Scripture teaches. It is the foundation upon which everything else is built. Get that wrong and it is NOT Christianity, but just another works-righteousness false religion just like all the rest of them. If that sounds offensive, I make not apology. The true gospel offends and divides. Jesus said it would.
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Rose, I am very glad you are here, dear sister. Keep speaking the truth in love. The Lord has blessed you with your life experience in the RCC so you can be a minister of the Gospel to those who are still in bondage to this religious system of works. Press on for the glory of God!
Rose Vosburgh
April 13, 2012
Thank you so much for your encouragement, Justin. I am so thankful you had the courage to address this thorny subject. In my passion to see abortion end, I was so caught up in it that I neglected to see or admit to myself that continuing to participate was causing me to be unequally yoked. At first, when I read your article, I was offended and wanted to rile against you. How could you pick on people who are out there on the street making a difference and accomplishing so much. But then I had to admit there had always been a prick in my conscience … times when I felt conflicted about my participation. I needed to have the issue clarified and that is what the article and this discussion has done for me. Thank you so much for your faithfulness and for allowing this discussion to take place. It is upsetting to people, especially to dear Catholic folks who do not understand true Biblical salvation. But, hopefully, there will be some who will keep coming back to read and little by little their eyes will open to the deception and falsehoods of a corrupt religious system that has no power to save their souls. May the Holy Spirit give understanding to those who, rather than taking offense, open their hearts and minds to what God wants to teach them.
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
I’m very thankful to the Lord for the display of humility you have shown here, Rose. Praise God He would use this article to help you understand the dangers in yoking with nonbelievers in spiritual enterprise. You have greatly encouraged me this week!
JimC
April 12, 2012
Justin, I find it interesting that you censor comments that challenge your beliefs, while you publish comments, like this last one from “gracealone1”, that make the Scribes and Pharisees seem like angels.
Could you, perhaps, give us unworthy gentiles some guidelines regarding what is acceptable commentary?
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Hi Jim, thanks for stopping by. There has been no censorship of comments as is clear by the opposition in this thread, including comments by Catholics. Now, some have violated the posting guidelines and have not been approved (two commenters by the way), but there has been minimum moderation so far. Please take a moment to review the guidelines. As to gracealone1’s comment – his or her words may have been strong, but there is nothing untrue in what he said. Catholics do need to repent from false religion and by the grace of God alone put their faith alone in Jesus Christ alone for the forgiveness of their sins to receive eternal life.
Jenny
April 13, 2012
Good morning everyone!
Food for thought this morning. The implications of compromising on the absolutely trustworthy and true words of the living and faithful God are so very great. Please know that this is just one of the ways we MUST stand firm and defend the truth as it is spoken in the revealed will and word of the Almighty God. Never does a “small” deviation from scriptural supremacy and authority which some may see as theological hairsplitting but is a lie from old (see Genesis 3) not lead away from Christ and to eventual delusion. Scripture is not to be added to in accordance with the many admonitions in his Word. It is also not to be twisted to suit our own desires and opinions for the heart is deceitful.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Matthew 15:11
From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? 2Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. 3Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. 4Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. 5Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? 6But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. James 4:1-6
You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deuteronomy 4:2
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1:25
There are no categories of sin Catholic friend. Every sin is significant because God is perfect and holy. What Satan offers is enticing and desireable, but we learn from scripture that
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. James 2:10
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:23-28
Justin has chosen to take a stand in this one area to defend the authority of Scripture, but it is not just this one point we are in opposition to. These are perilous times we are living in and today is the day of salvation.
For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Isaiah 55:10-11
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12
http://www.pro-gospel.org/
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/
http://formercatholicsforchrist.com/maryancollins/index.html
So, I leave you all with a challenge if you will.
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. Acts 17:10-12
for
I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Romans 1:16
With the love of Christ and for His glory!
-Jenny
Rose Vosburgh
April 13, 2012
Wonderful post, dear sister! You stated:”The implications of compromising on the absolutely
trustworthy and true words of the living and faithful God are so very great…this is just one of the ways we MUST stand firm and defend the truth as it is spoken in the revealed will and word of the Almighty God. Never does a “small” deviation from scriptural supremacy and authority which some may see as theological hairsplitting but is a lie from old…that leads away from Christ and to eventual delusion.”
There are many threats to the true faith in these Last Days..so many! But what Justin has touched upon here with the 40 Days of Life Campaign (which have enthusiastically participated in myself) is probably the greatest threat of all… the threat to the purity of the gospel message given to us by Jesus Christ. It is the only message that has the power to save the lost. Joining with unbelievers leads to diluting the message, softening it up, watering it down, compromising it and over time it it is no longer the gospel. Without the gospel, souls will perish in hell. Justin’s article woke me up. I wanted so badly to DO something to end abortion. I noticed the strong Catholic presence in the movement, but overlooked it thinking I could participate and remain separate. But I was deceiving myself. Abortion is a horrible thing and we should be actively working to end the practice. Of course, we should! But the enemy is so deceptive. He can get us off tract so easily, get us distracted from our true calling as believers…to win the lost and make disciples. In order to do that, we MUST preserve the true gospel of Christ. When we join hands in a spiritual endeavor with those who believe in a false gospel, it is a very slippery slope. Soon we begin to compromise the truth in order to please these people so we can continue to work with them and have their support in our cause. We want big numbers today…the bigger the better… so the ’let’s unite with anyone ‘mentality is the way to get things done. As bad as abortion is, there is something even worse that threatens our society…the loss of the purity of the gospel…the loss of the true means of salvation.
Thank you, Justin, for the brave stand you are taking in bringing to matter to the light of day. To speak out in this way costs you (as we have already seen on this blog), but keep speaking the truth in love as you are doing. Many will curl the lip in distain, but others will have their eyes opened and be brought back to understanding what our true mission is as the Church of Jesus Christ. I will continue to support pro-life causes and work in other areas where Christian witness is sorely needed. I will do it alone if I have to or with other Christians. But I will no longer yoke myself to people who are deceived by a false gospel. If I really love them, I will tell them the truth (as you have so faithfully done) even if they hate me for it. Saving lives is wonderful and we must continue on in that work while not yoking with unbelievers. However, saving souls is the essence of our faith and we must never lose sight of that as our paramount goal.
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Thank you so much, Rose. If you’d like, feel free to shoot me a message of your location and perhaps I know some saints in your area doing pro-life ministry and could hook you up with them.
Patte
April 13, 2012
Justin, I’m with you.
This message has a prophetic element to it. A prophet is often not received by the people in his own town. Let him, or her, who has ears to hear, hear the warning of God. The sovereign King of the universe doesn’t need a ‘movement’ or a popular ‘event’ to declare the truth in love amongst the perishing at the killing places. He will not share His glory with another ‘group’, no matter how ‘religious’ it seems. Keep being a 365 day a year bondservant to the living Christ & a loving neighbor to the fallen & redeemed folks around you. God bless you, brother.
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Patte, thank you so much, dear sister. Sometimes we must stand in the wilderness of unpopularity, but it is the calling the Lord has called each of us from time to time. It is encouraging to be supported by my dear brothers and sisters as we press on in the proclamation of God’s Word, heralding the Gospel to the ends of the earth, not compromising or relenting, that the Kingdom of God would battle forth for the glory of our Sovereign King. May He receive all the glory, honor, and praise for the work He is doing through all of us in the battle for the souls of men and women.
emanemc
April 13, 2012
I’m sorry, but the Catholics running this campaign are significantly more Christlike than whoever is writing this blog. By combining the should-be simple, innocent fight to end abortion with terrible claims of the inferiority of “religious cults”, you are essentially producing contention and hatred within a cause that should be based on love an acceptance. I honestly could’t care less what religion you practice, as long as you are happy with it. I would hope you could give the same respect to others. All branches of Christianity are worshiping the Lord in the way they best see fit, and if you have a problem with that, you should pray about it; maybe you’re in the wrong place. The infinite love of Christ can never survive if combined with the hatred of others, especially entire groups of people. If you find it a pivotal aspect of your religion to belittle other faiths, you can’t possibly have a firm knowledge of Christ’s ministry because you are going against it in nearly every way possible. When Jesus beheld his killers, the ultimate sinners, he did not tell other people to hate them. He pleaded with the Father and said “forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do”. If you have to be right about everything, at least take on a similar attitude and focus on hope and love, not hate and disrespect.
I wish you the best in your religious endeavor, and pray that the Lord will soften your heart.
With love,
A 17 year old Mormon “cult” member.
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Hi emanemc, thank you for taking the time to read the article and share your thoughts on the matter. I don’t expect you to understand the spiritual aspect to the conversation for the same reasons I don’t expect the Catholics here to understand. There are a few replies I will make to your comment, however:
There are no “branches of Christianity” and no Christian is permitted to “worship the Lord the best way they see fit.” Looking at the Authority on the matter, we see in Ephesians 4:4-6:
“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
Regarding worship, Jesus said in John 4:23-24:
“But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
Our worship must be in accordance to how God has revealed to us in Scripture to worship Him. Worshiping Him in a false way is, therefore, idolatrous to the Lord.
You also said the “infinite love of Christ can never survive if combined with hatred of others.” Firstly, the Lord Jesus Christ has already conquered sin and death by raising Himself from the dead to a glorified body. God’s love is indeed infinite for His children (born again Christians – to be redundant), and no force in creation can end His love. As for hatred, I will say along with the Apostle Paul in Galatians 4:16, “Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?”
If I may ask you a question, emanemc – would you consider yourself to be a good person?
Justin Edwards
April 13, 2012
Especially for the Catholics following this thread, please see the following post to this article titled “Dear Catholics of 40 Days for Life”: https://airocross.com/2012/04/13/catholics-of-40-days-for-life/
Brendon Helms
April 14, 2012
Justin and Rose,
I made a comment above about Paul being unequally yoked in Acts 21. Both of you responded, but for some reason the blog would not let me respond to those comments. So I am making the comments down here. Rose you said (and Justin you agreed) that Paul was not unequally yoked because the individuals he entered the temple with were Jewish Christians. I agree and I actually made that point to Michael. In my conversation with Michael I stated “Now I am not referring to the 4 individuals that Paul entered the temple with. What I [am] referring to is the observation that Paul entered the Jewish temple which was run by unbelieving Jewish leaders. Took part in a religious ceremony that would have been conducted by Jewish leaders. At no point do we see Paul object to this. He does not condemn the Jewish leaders here. He simply engages in a religious act which is being carried out under the supervision of Jewish religious leaders. From this I feel we are forced to conclude one of two things. 1.) Either Paul was sinful for this action because he was unequally yoked with the Jewish leaders in this instance or 2.) unequally yoked does not simply mean engaging in any religious activity with an unbeliever.”
Michael Coughlin
April 14, 2012
Brendon – Two answers: 1) Who cares what the Bible says? According to your earlier statements, man determines truth, right? So you can decide whatever you want about this passage!
Obvious jesting aside (in order to show you that we MUST interpret the scripture) –
I think my best answer to this question is that Paul, in fact, was a Jew. Paul, Peter & Jesus ALL participated in the Jewish religious ceremonies, and I think the early believers (especially Jews) continued in many of the traditions of the One True God. It was not yet understood that a new “era” had begun and that the ceremonial laws were now unnecessary because Christ had fulfilled them in His death, burial and resurrection. In fact, Hebrews and Galatians were written to help those early believers to understand the purpose of those laws and the fact that people did not have to become a jew first, then a Christian.
But, even so, the Jews did have the correct God – so, for example, we could still eat a passover meal today – even though that isn’t really a “Christian” thing, in order to commemorate what God really did during the Exodus, which I do take literally. 🙂
It is a seriously different thing to compare pre-Christ Judaism to any other religion. And early church practices still had a lot of pre-Christ Judaism carrying over.
Justin Edwards
April 14, 2012
I agree, Michael. This is Matthew Henry on Acts 21:19-26
It’s apples and oranges, Brendon.
If I may try to understand your argument better and carry it to its logical conclusion, are you then saying it is acceptable for a Christian to participate in worship with Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus? If none of these 5 groups have a saving knowledge of God, are you saying one would not be unequally yoked in worshiping with any of these groups? And I don’t believe I’ve actually gotten your interpretation of 2 Corinthians 6:14 – so may I? Thanks, Brendon.
dklim
April 14, 2012
Justin,
I appreciate your willingness to put the Truth first. The scriptures speak of false gospels and teachers, but it seems today as long as a few common terms are used the total content is tossed aside, for a cause (even if the cause itself is fine). True unity comes from putting the Truth first, and if I am in error of dividing the Word properly, I will be grateful for a fellow believer showing me my error, and our bond through Christ will be stronger. We are to be like the bereans and search the scriptures to check all things.
It is amazing to see the zeal with which people defend institutions, creeds, idolatry ( I saw a comment if we didn’t bear arms ect… to show our allegiance to man made documents like the constitution, which are given weight like scripture today in some institutions, we would be a traitor. Which if we are serving our Lord and are part of a heavenly kingdom, that is impossible 2 Tim 2: 1-4, but could be another whole blog!), and more. If only that energy was used to plant seeds and pursuade the lost about the good news. But it needs to be the true gospel.
As I read through everything, I am saddened that so many can’t see that if I was lost and terminally ill, a person could do a ” good deed” and provide me with medicine to heal my flesh and share a false spiritual message (which is not the true gospel), and think they are doing the Lord’s work but are decieved, while another shares the true gospel, which is the ONLY way to true life, and is the loving thing to do, even if I reject it at the time, God can change hearts. We believers are to be spiritually minded.
I am grateful to be given the greatest gift of salvation, being a most undeserving sinner, and as a sister wrote earlier, now desire to put away sin because of my appreciation, and share that life giving message to whomever the Lord brings in my life.
I appreciate the grace that has been shown by your handling of this subject, as well as many of the other fine comments. May many be ministered by God’s spirit in the process!
Bless You All,
David
Justin Edwards
April 14, 2012
Brother David, thank you for your encouragement here. My prayer is the Lord will use this discussion to challenge the minds of those unlearned, misguided, or deceived in these spiritual matters, that the saints would be edified and the lost come to repentance, and most importantly that our great God and King would be glorified. We must not shy away from proclaiming the Truth and standing firm in our defense of sound doctrine. This maintains the purity of the true Church and Gospel of Jesus. I know I am certainly learning and being sharpened, and I pray this is the case for other saints participating. Many blessings to you, dear brother.
Patte
April 15, 2012
Fulfilling the Great Commission
& warring against child-killing
does not need to be an either/or endeavor.
With God’s help
& the power of the Holy Spirit,
we can do both.
Justin Edwards
April 16, 2012
Thank you for everyone’s participation here. I believe the discussion has been exhausted and I want to keep the thread from getting too long so to not be unreadable. I am closing this thread, but you can continue the discussion regarding Roman Catholicism at Dear Catholics of 40 Days for Life, and follow up with any unanswered questions or continue the discussion regarding 2 Corinthians 6:14 in Dear Christians of 40 Days for Life (which also includes a public apology from me).