Sep 062012

Brian Brodersen Part 4 in his “Revival” series…it’s like the FED’s QE…I’m guessing there will be many more “parts”…this series keeps on goin’! 🙂 I think there’s some good stuff in BB’s recent missive, but I don’t know if I agree with this quote below as the definition of “Revival”…the Scripture seems to indicate that we really are incapable of “loving God with all of our heart” etc. Seems quite an over-sell and false litmus test for “Revival” to me (at least according to Scripture):

This is the searching question to consider: Do you love Jesus Christ with all your heart? Can you affirm that? Not around your peers, not to impress anyone publicly, but standing alone before God, can you affirm, “I love Jesus Christ with all of my heart”? Can you say honestly, “Lord, to the best of my knowledge and to the best of my ability, I am completely sold out to You and committed to doing Your will”? If you cannot say that with conviction, then I suggest you need revival.

Kellen Criswell is quickly becoming one of my favorite CC Pastors. He seems like a real guy who is less concerned about presenting a False Piety image…and more concerned about really reaching folks who need to hear and experience the true Gospel:

“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.” (Matthew 11:19)

A few weeks ago I found myself at a punk rock show at a bar in Salt Lake City, Utah. Admittedly, it was one of the last places most people expect to find a Christian pastor. I’m not saying that to make myself look cool, edgy, or controversial. It’s just the truth. And many Christians and Christian pastors have a hard time swallowing the idea of a pastor hanging out in such a place.

Chuck Smith affirms Intelligent Design and expresses his own struggles in the past with questions about the existence of God etc. I really like this…and have gone through a similar process. The old coot is stubbornly irresponsible in not exercising good leadership and Church Discipline as the Apostle of the Church at Calvary Chapel…but he’s right on a lot of stuff, like this:

Maybe there is something to atheism, I thought. Maybe all this spiritual stuff is nothing more than the creation of man. I went through a period of real misery, almost sinking from the weight of my oppressive thoughts. Maybe God doesn’t exist. Maybe it is all man’s concepts and ideas, since man appears to need to believe in something. The more I entertained thoughts like these, the more I sank emotionally. And then I thought, Maybe God doesn’t exist—but it’s easier to believe that He does exist than to believe that He doesn’t. As I looked at the world and the universe, I found it much easier to believe in the existence of God than to believe that everything I saw came into being by sheer chance.

Danny Lehmann of YWAM and a teacher at Calvary Chapel Honolulu wants you to be well-read…including John Calvin! LOL. In yo face George Bryson! 😆 I think it is fear that keeps many in Calvary Chapel from considering the vast array of perspectives in Christianity…fear and ignorance. A weak Faith needs to be locked up, protected, barricaded from outsiders! A strong Faith is built on “work out your own Salvation in fear and trembling”…that’s a Holy Fear. Read up. Read broadly. Ask the Holy Spirit to help you. Don’t give in to the Bryson fear-mongers of the Calvary Chapel Association. Bryson is an ignorant fool and should be on the other side of the pulpit…and should do the first priority, which is swallow his pride and do whatever it takes to get his family back together. CC’ites, Chuck Smith’ers…listen to the Criswell’s and the Lehmann’s…don’t let the Bryson’s fill you full of nonsense.

Read a variety of “genres” (types of books ). Early Fathers (i.e. Irenaeus, Athanasius, Tertullian), medieval and modern mystics ( Thomas A’Kempis, Teresa of Avila, Madame Guyon , Brother Lawrence, Andrew Murray), Reformers (Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Knox), Revivalists (Wesley, Whitfield, Finney, Moody), missionary biographies (William Carey, Hudson Taylor, Amy Carmichael) and great saints of the past (William and Catherine Booth, Wilberforce, Spurgeon), Bible commentaries (Stott, Wiersbe), specialty books (books revolving around your passions–(i.e. for me evangelism, missions and spiritual discipline), and devotional classics (Pilgrims Progress, Mere Christianity, My Utmost For His Highest etc.)

David Rosales wins the honor of “Sermon of the Week”. Unfortunately, it’s like awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize before he did anything. I watched it…L.A.M.E. The personal anecdotes about how rough he had it on a Hawaiian vacation and how he had to suck it up was about as relevant to the rank-and-file as a Hollywood celebrity complaining about tough times on a trip to Paris. Rosales is out of touch, has bought into his own celebrity (and carefully masks his pride and presents a false humility). Rosales promotes himself as struggling with sin in the same tired and contrived manner I grew up with in Calvary Chapel. It’s really a tool, IMO, to promote himself.

The technique/script goes like this: 1. Tell a story about how you struggle with a petty sin, usually pride or being ungrateful or being in a bad mood. 2. Use your wife as the White Hat foil to point out how you need to buck up and be the “pastor” and “man of God” and get over whatever petty issue it is and thank God for the tough circumstance (which is usually a trip delay, a cancelled flight, a long lay-over, an annoying fellow traveler, a rude attendant etc). 3. A person usually recognizes the CCSP during this faux-ordeal and expresses their knowledge of their Christian celebrity status. 4. The Wife steps in and acts like the righteous saint she is. 5. The CCSP is convicted of this terrible sinful attitude they have and they put their eyes back on Jesus and get over the terrible trial of being delayed, annoyed, etc. 6. The CCSP ties it up in a bow and presents it to the non-member members of his CC Franchise as an Object Lesson in how humble the pastor is, how Godly the Wife is, how the CCSP struggles with sin (but not real disqualifying sin…no they hide the really good stuff from you), reaffirm they are “someone” by being recognized by the masses, and then “repent” and get their eyes back on Jesus for the trip home, etc. Gag. It’s about as real as a $30 Rolex.

David Rosales, you get the “Sermon of the Weak”…as in it was Weak Sauce and vacuous. Get over yourself and help some folks in a real way. If you’re going to share about pastors sinning…share some detailed gore about your buddies Raul Ries and Bob Grenier…now that’s some real sin and some authenticity!

There’s a whole lot more to Rosales’s sermon/defense from the pulpit regarding getting called out for buddying up with TBN…we’ll cover that issue in its own article to come…

Link to the “Sermon of the Weak” by David Rosales of Calvary Chapel Chino Valley here:

 Posted by at 12:04 pm

  42 Responses to “Lin-CC-athon: Brodersen’s Revival Part 4 (it’s a saga!), Punk Rockin’ it with a CCSP, Chuck Smith plays Intelligent Design Apologist, CC Honolulu teacher appeals to Church History, Church Fathers, etc…and David Rosales highlighted as “Sermon of the Week” (I watched it, it’s lame…I’ll explain why)”

  1. Oh my … this is going to sound contrived since I have so many examples of how this stuff is systemic in CC … but it’s the truth so I’ll say it anyway:

    The technique described is something I had thought was unique to my last CC pastor. He seemed to have that routine down pat. It’s effective the first 20 times you hear it, but after awhile you could sorta predict when it was coming next.

    Yet another example of the CC issues being systemic. The CC machine has a way of propagating this stuff. My pastor learned this technique somewhere … I’m betting from another CC pastor or two or three.

  2. Uh, I dunno Bryson, but if he’s admonishing people to stay away from the ideas of Teresa of Avila, Madame Guyon, “Brother” Lawrence, and other contemplatives, he can’t be all bad. As for Danny Lehmann, if he really has “spiritual formation” (a codeword for contemplative spirituality) as one of his “passions”, he’s partaking in one of the most serious and dangerous trends in Christendom. A “teacher” at Calvary Chapel Honolulu, is he? Swell.

    All this demonstrates the fact that “Emergence Christianity” is indeed emerging at CC. Sad, but not surprising given CS’s tolerance of RC-ism. CC’s ecumenism is bearing its rotten fruit.

  3. Alex…forgive the interruption, but I can’t resist.
    The whole Rosales tale was told to defend himself against you and J.A. for calling him out on his TBN visit.

    The whole thing…for that one point.

    Pure bs by Rosales.

    As you were…

  4. Thanks Michael, appreciate the info and feedback.

  5. Chuck(Not Smith), Bryson is pretty much an anti-Calvinist, not sure he dabbles in the anti-Emergent stuff much.

    He’s pretty focused on making the case that Calvinism is evil (though he makes the case poorly…his Debate with James White didn’t go well for him).

    I’m all for Ecumenicism with regards to those who affirm the Core Essentials of the Faith…not so much for those who reject or deny the Core Essentials.

    I think it’s pretty simply laid out here:

    1 John 2:22 Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist–he denies the Father and the Son.

    It’s about Jesus Christ. If one’s Belief System has Jesus Christ as Messiah, the Son of the Living God…then they’re probably on very solid ground. Deny Jesus Christ as the Messiah…not so much.

  6. Lol on your Rosales take, just remove the name “David Rosales” and subsitute in”Pancho Juarez”

  7. What’s a good source to read up on this “technique” used.

    Also, a good source for Contemplative “Christianity.” Thanks, LP

  8. Linda P,

    I know nothing about “Contemplative” Christianity. I looked it up to see about it and the first thing that came up was I am sure you know much more about it, but this was enough for me to just stay away from it.

    God bless you,

  9. Hey Alex

    Despite all your criticism of me , both Sheckstein and I called it. SDSU 28, Army cerro. You may be right on the Moses Model, but you will not be right on da Spuds

  10. 42-7

  11. Thank you Paul, I really like the Mr. Cadddock summed it up:

    “The irony is that a clear biblical gospel, if believed to be true, will produce assurance that has truly profound psychological benefits.34There is no place for centering prayer in discipleship. Meditation is to be on God’s Word, not on nothingness.”

  12. Linda P,

    When you read Mr. Caddock’s Conclusion, did you go to the reference note 34? –

    “..34There is no place for centering prayer in discipleship……”

    (34 See “The Psychological Effects of Lordship Salvation,” by Frank Minirth in the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 1993, 39-51.)

    The Psycological Effects of Lordship Salvation is found at . You may like that also, or maybe not? I haven’t read it yet but plan to, I found the introduction interesting.

    God bless you

  13. Paul,

    Thanks for the article by Dr. Meier. Hmmm. I know what I am about to say is going hit some buttons among some.

    No, we cannot earn our salvation by works, but if we are saved, our faith will compel to walk in obedience and to bear the fruits of works done in the Spirit. Also, if we continue to walk according the flesh, my question would be, are we truely saved.

    Jesus told us in Mark 1:15.

    So, just to say one believes does not make one a Christian. For even the demons believe. There is choice (work) on our part to repent (work) and to believe (work) that leads to salvation. In addition to this, time after time after time, Paul, Peter, John, James, and Jesus has told that those that do not walk (work) and do the things of the spirit, while putting away the things of the flesh are not God’s children.

    When we do works that are in the flesh that are not in the spirit those counted as wood, hay, and stubble. For some, it i evident that they were never saved at all. For Jesus, told us, that even though they did miracles and so forth, He did not even know them.

    So in a large part, if not wholly, I disagree with Dr. Meier. For truly coming to the Cross of Salvation, one must be willing to acknowledge that (work) that they can no longer walk contrary to Him, but must permit Him to pay the debt of their rebellliousness against God by accepting (work) His forgiveness, then committing (work) to follow after (work) Him.

    What do you think. You know everyone wants a Savior, but few wants to make Him Lord.
    This teaching “once saved, always saved gives license to those to also say, hey, He died for me, He’s got me covered. Rather than to understand that this is not a free ride and God cannot be mocked nor can His Holy Spirit be grieved. But this is what many who claims to be Christian will tell you. Salvation is about making Him the Lord of your life in everything. His forgiveness is a free gift in that a person did not have to pay the ultimate sacrifice that Jesus did. But whether not, you recieve so great of a gift is dependent upon whether, or not you decide to lay your own life down to serve or to follow after him.

  14. Sorry, that should be by Frank Minirth, not Dr. Meier who used to have a practice with him. I think they went their separates ways due to each wanting to pursue a more independent course be it in Christian Psychology or as a writer.

    One other thought. Ephesians 2:9-10 tells us:

    (KJV) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

    “You are saved through faith.” I think that is the key—where does this faith comes from, if not from the Holy Spirit that speaks to our own to provoke and to convict and to woo us to hear the Gospel message of God’s love and His plan for man’s redemption.


  15. Re: #5


    I hear you about 1 John 2:22, but John’s statement is not meant to be an exhaustive list of EVERY way of denying Christ. It’s possible for anyone to profess according to that scripture’s wording, then deny it through their doctrines by preaching another “christ”. Example: One way is to denigrate Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice on the cross by asserting that He is “present bodily, in the Eucharist”, to be “sacrificed anew” at each celebration of the mass. The type of ecumenism promoted by the “church” which believes in that heresy (transubstantiation, taught by the RCC, which is seducing CCCM) is what I’m referring to. While CCCM may not be buying into that heresy (I hope), they are falling under the influence of those who teach it relentlessly. For the gospel’s sake, CCCM SHOULD be separating themselves from the RCC, completely and loudly. They’re not.

  16. Linda said…

    “this is not a free ride”

    It isn’t? Jesus didn’t pay it ALL? I gotta pay too?

    How MUCH do I hafta pay? Not meaning to be snarky here, but this is an important issue. If there’s something I need to add to Christ’s sacrifice (besides believing, which is NOT a work), I need to know what it is!

    “Believing” I agree indeed does not mean simple intellectual assent (which the demons have). It means resting in Christ’s finished sacrifice. It is not a “work” in any sense.

  17. #15 CS – I heard plenty of bashing of the Catholic church and Catholics for years when I attended several Calvary C’s. There were when I attended alot of ex-Catholics in CC who weren’t happy with their Catholic faith and so converted to CC. I think it is really lame to bash the Catholic faith. I started attending the Catholic mass for awhile after I left CC and was impressed with some of the wonderful Catholic people I met who are deeply into their faith in Christ. I was also touched by God there in a profound way. I don’t attend anymore but I checked it out for myself after hearing the faith put down so much, and so I don’t go along with the bash the Catholics crowd. CC is not being as tough on Catholics now? If so, that would be an improvement to me.

  18. Linda P. and Chuck (not smith),

    I agree with both of you.

    Obviously this is just my own opinion (which we all have one of), but I believe that too many people take a single verse, or a single word, to a single side of the pendulum even when it is use in different places; without considering the middle ground for both. For example: when “works” are defined. Anything we use our physical or spiritual energy with, is a “work”. Undoubtedly there is nothing we can do (work) in order to be Saved. Yet we will do things (work) until we die. Does that mean that if we one-time sin (work) after Salvation, that we are no longer Saved? I kind of doubt it because Jesus has said after saving someone (I think the woman they wanted to cast stones on for adultery, but I could be wrong) to “Go and sin no more”. If all it takes is the (work) of one single sin after Salvation to no longer be saved, there would be hardly anyone going to Heaven after they are saved. The degree of the sin work that it takes for anyone to lose their salvation is up to Jesus. In this scenario works can, or cannot, cost you your salvation. However, there are absolutely no works (physical or spiritual energy) that will get you saved. Jesus will save you only through His Mercy. Yes Jesus gives you Mercy through your (accepting) His Mercy and you accepting it can be considered as one side of the “works” pendulum, but the middle ground of “works” are how you use them, either for or against God (goodness). In other words, the two pendulum sides of “works” are either for or against goodness. Therefore wanting goodness and salvation is a pendulum side verses wanting evilness being the other side. Someone can want Jesus to save them (after they have sinned) but He in no way MUST save them and therefore they can still not be saved. Someone else can want to be saved (after they have sinned) and He in no way must NOT save them. The Mercy is His, the works are ours. The two pendulum sides of works are left to us to argue about.

    God bless you,

  19. Sue…

    It is not “bashing” the RCC to point out where their doctrine is unbiblical. I wish no evil to anyone in the RCC. It is only out of love for Christ and His Gospel that I take the time to point out these things. (And yes, take the flack for doing so.)

    Nor am I “bashing Catholics” themselves. I am well aware that there are many “good people” in the RCC, who are very “sincere”. But, nobody is saved by being “good people” no matter how sincere they are in their error. (Romans 3:9-24). I have a sister who is still heavily into RCC-ism along with her family. They are very good people, yet they are lost. I grieve for them, praying that they come to the knowledge of the Biblical Gospel, and rest in it.

    I’m one of those “ex-Catholics in CC who weren’t happy with their Catholic faith and so converted” (tho I didn’t “convert to CC”, I converted to CHRIST). As it happens, it was the Lord Himself who led me away from CCCM eventually, as I gained a more firm grasp of the Gospel of Grace by studying the Bible on my own.

    My knowledge of RCC-ism comes first-hand. I didn’t simply attend a mass or two to “check it out for myself”. I was raised in the RCC from birth. I know exactly what it is about. Ever wonder WHY there are so many EX-Catholics at CC? It’s because they didn’t find the true gospel in RC-ism, and looked for a church that would focus on the Bible, not the “doctrines of men”. For all their faults, CC did teach the Bible more than most big churches back then, WAY more than the RCC. Unfortunately, Pastor Chuck’s failure to properly expose RC-ism as the false gospel it is (as opposed to superficially refuting a few isolated RCC doctrines on rare occasions) has left any ex-Catholics at CC vulnerable to being sucked back into the beast. (I know of one particular person to whom this actually happened.)

    Linda, I have no doubt that when you attended mass you were indeed “touched” by the ritual. It is designed to please the eyes, the ears, to invoke “spiritual feelings”. Please understand, what you experienced there was not of the Lord, but of the flesh (at best). The trappings of Catholicism are beautiful in their fleshly way, but they lead to bondage.

    I pray no one here ever falls into that bondage.

  20. Re: post #19

    I meant to address SUE, not Linda, in that last statement.

    My apologies to Sue and Linda.

    I think I better go to bed b4 I fall asleep in this chair. G’nite all. }O

  21. Chuck, read through your last comment before going to the one you began with Sue, then ended with me: LOL

    As for what you shared, I readily identified with your own journey out of RCC and being introduced the Bible through the the Gospel message. I was set free from so much. And yes, from early childhood until about age, 15, I was as steeped in RCC catechisms and so forth. So, like you via CC I became aware of the Gospel and took right to studying on my own and sitting under many teachers including some in CC. I was a part of CC since October 23, 1978. That’s a long time. During this time, I became a student of Apologetics and also a staff member for the Christian Research Institute which increaed my faith and equip me to identify false teachings and to be more discerning towards life in general. Now looking upon the organizational structuring of CC and its policy and procedures for practicing or rather not practicing church discipline, nor be accountable to those who are referred to as “spiritual” members only reminds me so much of RCC, its not even funny considering the Nicolaitans and church of Sardis and Laodicea. It is very grievious to me as well as others who are or have left that which was such a pivotal point in introducing the Gospel to so many such as myself who left RCC as a teenager and wandered about searching for the truth and a faith that wasn’t so full of potholes and unhealthy authoritarian practices, especially towards the female gender.

    As you stated so well, people can be very sincere in what they teach and/or believe, but at the same time, they can be sincerely wrong.

  22. Paul,

    #18 — Nicely stated. 🙂

  23. Chuck(not Smith) said, “I hear you about 1 John 2:22, but John’s statement is not meant to be an exhaustive list of EVERY way of denying Christ. It’s possible for anyone to profess according to that scripture’s wording, then deny it through their doctrines by preaching another “christ”. Example: One way is to denigrate Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice on the cross by asserting that He is “present bodily, in the Eucharist”, to be “sacrificed anew” at each celebration of the mass. The type of ecumenism promoted by the “church” which believes in that heresy (transubstantiation, taught by the RCC, which is seducing CCCM) is what I’m referring to. While CCCM may not be buying into that heresy (I hope), they are falling under the influence of those who teach it relentlessly. For the gospel’s sake, CCCM SHOULD be separating themselves from the RCC, completely and loudly. They’re not.”

    I’ve become a Minimalist in my middle-agedness after going round and round with these issues and the study of ‘truth’ epistemology etc.

    My position is that we really don’t know very much in terms of Absolutes…much of what we call Scripture is really a particular Denom or Group or Camp or Guru’s ‘interpretation’ of Scripture.

    Now that doesn’t mean we go Bart Ehrman or Rob Bell or Bill Clinton and question the meaning of the word “is”…

    …but it does mean that there are some non-core issues that have good Scriptural arguments both for and against.

    While I gravitate to how one perceives Jesus Christ as my litmus test…I also acknowledge that even the demons have correct theology when it comes to that issue…so it’s not a litmus test for necessarily being ‘saved’/regenerated…but it is a litmus test for identifying a false religion. If Jesus Christ isn’t Messiah, the Son of the Living God in a particular Belief System…I can certainly cross that one off the list.

    …others, I have to be a bit more open to the possibility they may be in the Tent if they are correct about who Jesus Christ is and what He’s done…while I still disagree with some of what I perceive as Secondary Issues

  24. #19 – Hi CS – I agree some of what RC’s believe is off and dumb, but that doesn’t make them the “beast.” I heard that for years that they are the “beast” – too paranoid for me. I think it is arrogant to assume RC’s are lost like your sister and her family. Only God knows what is in their hearts. There are many who convert to RC from other religions the way you converted to CC and find Christ there. To me CC taught many things that a Catholic church wasat off just like the Catholics or other groups. I disagree that what I experienced was “not of the Lord”. I was not touched by the ritual – I was touched deeply by God. His spirit was not one of bondage. It was one of love.

  25. Linda said:

    “Salvation is about making Him the Lord of your life in everything. His forgiveness is a free gift in that a person did not have to pay the ultimate sacrifice that Jesus did. But whether not, you recieve so great of a gift is dependent upon whether, or not you decide to lay your own life down to serve or to follow after him.”


  26. Several wrote: “Salvation is about making Him the Lord of your life in everything”

    Huh? That’s not the Gospel. And if it were, then nobody is in heaven. Nobody in the Bible made Him Lord over everything, and nobody here does either, and nobody ever will.

    It sounds super-spiritual to make such an arrogant statement as “I have made Jesus Lord of all!”. But nobody has actually done that. And nobody can.

    What people will do to avoid simply trusting in what Jesus did in the cross.

  27. I just posted an article on Brian Brodersen Re-tweeting a Roman Catholic Cardinal and Rick Warren –

  28. Re: # 24 Sue said…

    “I agree some of what RC’s believe is off and dumb, but that doesn’t make them the ‘beast.'”

    Sue, please forgive my lack of clarity with my use of the word “beast”. I was using it in a generic sense, not referring to THE Beast of Revelation. I don’t believe the RCC is THE Beast, tho the false prophet of Revelation could well turn out to be a pope. Benedict XVI sure acts like he’s auditioning for the part. He’s doing all he can to foster the formation of the final one world religion.

    As for my sister and family, I agree, we cannot know any individual’s heart well enough to make a final judgment on their standing with God, yet, any Catholic who actually is saved is saved in spite of their RC profession, not because of it. Such a person would need to harbor fundamental differences in their heart with RC doctrine about justification. I think that’s possible because we humans are capable of harboring all kinds of conflicting beliefs at the same time. As to my sister and family, I can only go by what they tell me, which is that “the ‘faith-only’ thing is wrong, nobody gets to Heaven without some good works, and even then most must spend some time in Purgatory to be cleansed”. That’s what they believe. That’s not the Gospel that saves. That means they’re trusting in a false gospel, which is a false hope. Given their own statement of “faith” therefore, I must consider them as being lost as any other non-believer.

    So, you were “touched deeply by God” at a blasphemous ritual that denies the Gospel of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ? If that was the God of the Bible touching you, you would have been grieved. Satan can cast himself as an angel of light. PLEASE don’t be fooled!

  29. Re: #23

    Alex said:

    “…others, I have to be a bit more open to the possibility they may be in the Tent if they are correct about who Jesus Christ is and what He’s done…while I still disagree with some of what I perceive as Secondary Issues”

    10-4 about truly secondary issues, Alex. The point I attempted to make is that Transubstantiation is not a secondary issue! It assaults the very core of the gospel, as does the “faith-plus-works” doctrine, and other RC doctrines.

    As to being “correct about who Jesus Christ is and what He’s done”, we’ve already established that the demons are such, but they’re certainly not “in the Tent”, are they? 🙂 One must believe (apply to oneself, rest in) that truth to receive the benefit of it and be “in the Tent”, as you put it. That is the step which the ENEMY tries to keep us from.

    In my studies, I’ve found that there is quite a bit of doctrine which Scripture spells out plainly. The foggy “complexity” comes in when people try to bend things to their own purposes. The RCC has spent centuries doing such.

  30. Re: #18


    I agree that a saved person is not lost because of post-regeneration sin. Justification pertains to our relationship with God. Someone who is saved (born again by the Spirit, placed in Christ), is an adopted son of God, and that relationship cannot be broken once it is made. Sin takes one out of fellowship with God until the sin is confessed, but at no time does the believer’s relationship with God change. (Tho, watch out if you compromise with sin! You will be disciplined as a son!)

    Works (deeds) done after regeneration affect our rewards in heaven; whether we keep them or lose them to the fire. Works done outside of regeneration are wiped away for the believer; they affect the punishments of those finally damned for not believing the Gospel. Our relationship with God is determined by whether or not we take God at His word regarding our sin and His provision for it, resting in that provision (faith) and that relationship is what determines our final destination; heaven or the lake of fire.

    Finally, I think it’s good to remember that nobody is saved because they want to be, but because they <believe in the shed blood of Christ, and that alone, for their salvation. Many want to be saved (whatever their definition of “saved”), but they don’t want to go the way of simple faith, with nothing added. So they work very hard at earning their own salvation, or at adding to God’s provision for them. That’s unbelief. God hates that, or so I read.

  31. Jesus said: Mark 1:15

    We are also told that all adulterers will go to hell, if they don’t repent.

    I’m sorry but there are too many scriptures that tells us otherwise: we can begin by reading II Timothy 3. The great apostasy.

    Hebrews 13:4
    Revelation 21:8
    Proverbs 6:32
    Proverbs 6:33
    Proverbs 6:34
    Proverbs 6:35

    Proverbs 7 (the man can play the harlot as well)

    I sure wouldn’t want to take the risk of thinking these are covered and it’s just matter of losing rewards. Alot of people do believe and then they think they can balance the scale by doing good. Reminds of my RCC teachings. I call it a belief in “wantom grace.”

  32. #26 Matthew 12:30

    And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

    Proverbs (KJV) 6:32

    But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

    Okay, James used the litmus test of “even the demon’s believed.”

    James 2:14-26
    New International Version (NIV)

    Faith and Deeds
    14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

    18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

    Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

    20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[a]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[b] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

    25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

  33. The Sacrifice of the Mass

    Written by Mike Gendron.

    The Roman Catholic Mass must be attended by Catholics every Sunday and holy days of obligation under the penalty of mortal sin. Following are seven bibilcal reasons why the Mass is a Catholic tradition that violates the perfect sacrifice for sin that was offered once, for all sin, for all time.

    1. Jesus was never a “victim” as Rome purports, He went to the cross willingly in humble obedience to His Father (Philippians 2:8).

    2. When Jesus said we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, His words were spiritual and not to be taken literally (John. 6:63). He was using figurative language, as He often did (John 16:25). His disciples were familiar with the figurative phrase “eating and drinking” to describe the appropriation of divine blessings to one’s innermost being (Jeremiah 15:16; Isaiah 55:1-3).

    3. Those who take “eating and drinking” literally must become cannibals to gain eternal life. Furthermore, consuming blood was forbidden; those who did were to be cut off. Jesus would not have asked the Jews to break the law (Leviticus 17:10-14). This also presents a dilemma, “What if a person eats and drinks but does not believe?” Or “what if a person believes but does not eat and drink?”

    4. The alleged change of bread and wine into flesh and blood is not a miracle but a hoax because there is no change in appearance, substance and taste. True biblical miracles were real and observable.

    5. Rome says the Mass is a bloodless sacrifice, but a sacrifice without blood cannot atone for sins (Leviticus 17:11; Hebrews 9:22). Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper as a memorial not a sacrifice (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24).

    6. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find priests offering sacrifices for sin or Masses for the dead. Catholic priests violate Christ’s unique role as mediator between God and men. (1Timothy 2:5).

    7. To worship the elements of the Mass is to commit the sin of idolatry (Exodus 20:4-5).

  34. I just posted another article on Brian Brodersen –

    I am encouraging people who know people that attend Calvary Chapel, CCCM, or CC Vista to send this link.

    It is very important to help our brethren who have been shielded from what’s going on to see what’s happening.

    Please pray for those who are trapped there by trusting in men (Jer 17:5) and not being Bereans. I was guilty of that at one time.

  35. Re: #32


    Good quotes from James. Here’s a couple from Paul…

    “But now, apart from law the righteousness of God has been manifested… even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe…” (Ro. 3:21,22)

    … to the one who does NOT work, but believes on Him who justifies theungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.” (Ro. 4:5) (Emphases mine.)

    Paul says “faith alone”. James seems to say faith + works (if one doesn’t read carefully). Why the apparent contradiction?

    Because James is NOT adding works to faith. He is describing the quality of the faith that saves. Real faith will move the real believer to good deeds–sooner or later. But it must be constantly stressed: Works are not necessary for salvation, they are simply inevitable. “Inevitable” is not the same as “necessary”. One who is born again of the Spirit through simple faith in Christ’s sacrifice is indwelt by the Spirit, who will work in that believer to bring about true good works; works done out of love (as opposed to fear, guilt, or self-righteous requirement). He will that is, if the believer rests in the FREE gift of God’s righteousness. Spirit-led works do not add to faith, but result from it. There is a critical difference. Anyone who performs “good” works out of a perceived need to have some works to (in effect) “verify” their faith is walking according to the flesh (in unbelief), not according to the Spirit. Genuine works of the Spirit are performed through us when (and only when) we rest in Christ’s work on the cross for us, without any works of our own! (See Ro. 4:5 above.)

    As to sin, any born-again believer who sins (willfully or not) will be chastised and convicted until they confess, and change their mind (repent) about the sin. The Spirit always wins, eventually.

    Folks, I’ve addressed the “faith/works” issue (began in #16) as well as I can. I’m beginning to repeat myself, which means I’m done.

    “If that don’t git it, it ain’t in town.” 🙂

    Bye all.

  36. #28 chuck – I appreciate what you are saying. And Catholics are too stuck in their ways for me. But I know many “born again” Christians who don’t buy the justification by faith alone. They think you can lose your salvation. They think you have to “abide in Christ” to make it, and they contradict themselves by what they say. Oh yes, they say you are saved by grace alone and then they tell you to “work out your salvation”. I agree with you on the faith alone, but I know many “born agains” who think you aren’t saved unless you are behaving a certain way, etc. Thay are not different from the Catholics I met who said they were saved by grace but they thought you had to be doing good works too – not really different from those who say grace alone but if you aren’t producing good fruit, etc. you probably arent saved. I will never deny I was deeply touched by God during a Catholic mass and it wasn’t satan. I knew it was God. I felt God had a real sense of humor to do that considering all the things I had been told. No it was real and of God – peace

  37. Sue,

    Do you believe that an emotional experience constitutes truth?
    I was deeply moved in the 70’s by a Hare Krishna meeting and it was not of God.
    I think we have to be careful of these experiences and make sure it lines up with the Word of God.

    Did you read any of what I posted?
    Why would God be a part of a false system of worship, idolatry, and a Jesus that is sacrificed daily at a Mass?
    A Jesus that’s redemptive work is not finished?
    Didn’t he say at his crucifixion… “It is finished?”

  38. PS. I know what many say about the Mass. That is is just representation, and the same as our communion. But it isn’t. Study what the Mass is. You would be as surprised as I was. That is if you are open to the reality of what it is all about. You are anathema (which is cursed to hell) by the RCC of you do not agree it is the ACTUAL substance of Jesus.
    Transubstantiation is the “miracle” by which a Priest who is the authority to mediate the substance of Jesus being transformed into the bread. It is a bloodless sacrifice which by the way is not acceptable to God anyway.
    This is not about Catholic bashing which is how everyone usually sees this.
    It is about comparing the ritual of the Mass with the truth of the Word of God.
    The office of Priesthood has been fulfilled by Christ.
    So the mere fact that there is a Priesthood at all lets you know that the RCC is just an extension of OT Judaism, and in direct oppostion to the truth of what Christ did and His office of Priesthood. He on his own, alone went to the cross, without a Priest. At that point, the office was finished.
    You cannot come to God in the RCC without a Priest.
    The RCC Priesthood is everything.
    I don’t believe as you say “God has a sense of humor” about all this.

    Read Hebrews. It will be illuminating.

  39. #35 Chuck, not Smith

    Nice job!!! That is what I am saying. I know it sounds like I”m saying something else, but I am not.

    Another way of looking at what I was attempting to get across is this.

    All the things I put (works) in perenthesis are those things can only occur as a result of the inward working of the Holy Spirit. Without these things being manifested, then as James shared with us. Our faith is dead.

    So, if I were to say that I believe in Jesus and what He did for me, but continue to in the flesh—-I would be no better off than the demons. I could “do” all the “works” I wanted to be a “good” person, but it would not be under the power or in the indwelling of having the Holy Spirit as a result of being born again. and freed from being under bondage of those works done in the flesh.

  40. Oh, should add:

    But it is because of the Holy Spirit that dwells inside of me that I am compelled and enabled to do the works that are set before me. To follow after Him, and to give a good witness to others. In this, I do not boast of myself, but boast of the grace and mercy of the Living God.

  41. “Real faith will move the real believer to good deeds”

    Therefore, it is the works that we do is evidence of all faith. For without, works our faith is dead.

    I think we get tripped up when we think that if we do this or if we do that, then it proves our faith. But that is not so, for when we do this, then it is a work of the flesh or another way of saying it, it is done through our own efforts to earn something—like salvation. Which we cannot earn. However, without evidence of works then we can say that we have not been born again. In other words, it is impossible to be born again and not bring forth good fruits that are a result of the Holy Spirit that indwells us. Do we need to examine ourselves? Absolutely, we are work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.

  42. 1 John 3:10
    1 John 3:17
    1 John 3:18
    1 John 3:23
    1 John 3:24

    These are the things that manifests (gives evidence to) our faith. Just as James has told us:

    James 2:14
    James 2:15
    James 2:16
    James 2:17
    James 2:18
    James 2:19
    James 2:20
    James 2:21
    James 2:22
    James 2:23
    James 2:24

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>