News Snippets From All Beats

Many civic minded individuals with religious convictions have joined together in the Manhattan Declaration to declare their opposition to abortion and support of marriage, among other socially redeeming values.  Except for other signers, it might be only the commendable exertion of civic duty on the part of the citizenry that could be praised much in the same way as their registering to vote, though garnering more of it from those who agree with their position.  What has turned this otherwise fair lesson in civics, however, into a debacle is the assortment of religious leaders who are now also in league together by their own declaration.

The religious signers of the Manhattan Declaration include many high-ranking officials of the Roman Catholic Church.  Present are the Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila, Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese; Most Rev. Robert J. Baker, S.T.D., Bishop of Birmingham Diocese;  Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver; Most Rev. Nicholas DiMarzio, Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn; Most Rev. Timothy Dolan, Archbishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of New York, etc., et al.¹  Had it ended there it would have remained only a Constitutionally protected expression of religious beliefs to be respected.

The trouble with the document is that an assortment of famous, Protestant religious leaders has also signed onto it.  This has caused many to declare openly their disappointment and disapproval, and to question the wisdom of such an act.

How can persons who conduct large ministries which include study in the scriptures be so very ignorant of the implications of their endorsements? When they sign the Manhattan Declaration they affix their seal of recognition that legitimizes the views and positions of other signatories.  This writer has yet to discover that heretofore Kay Arthur, of Precept Ministries International, and Chuck Colson, of Prison Fellowship; have renounced their view of salvation through Christ alone and have joined the Catholic Church to obtain it.

Certainly it is a logical step to take after joining with its representatives in religious pursuit of ideals based on a common understanding of the scriptures.  The Protestants who signed would do well to understand what the Roman Catholic Church understands about itself:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour [sic], after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd…. This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church.²

This tenent of the Roman Catholic Church, found in the Dogmatic Constitution On The Church, simply means that if one is not in the Catholic Church, one is not in the body of Christ; as the Catholic Church is the only true Christian church.  It follows that the Catholic Church would conclude the obvious about those who left it, or remained outside of it, in regards to salvation.  What the Catholic Church still affirms as its position on salvation, “basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the [Catholic] Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation.”³

In light of these things, should we now expect future study programs from Arthur’s Precept Ministries instructing on how recant Protestantism to join the Catholic Church?  Will Colson’s Prison Fellowship be disturbing Bibles and rosaries to inmates?  While offerings that could be forthcoming from such popular ministries would probably not be so blatant, but of a more subtle nature; such a change in directions could have ill effects on many who subscribe to those ministries.  That makes the nature of these questions, if not their substance, serious; and among others that should be answered by the signatories:

Jack Graham - Will Dr. Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas, perform the Mass when fellow signatories such as His Eminence Adam Cardinal Maida come to call on him?

Josh McDowell - Is author Josh McDowell, founder of the ministry by the same name, soon to release a book titled: New Evidence that Demands a PAPACY“?

Chuck Swindoll - More to the point, and at the foundation, can Chuck Swindoll, pastor and founder of Insight for living, lend any insight as to why he now accepts the organization which claims exclusive sacerdotal powers and that conversely finds his Pastoral Office illegitimate and ungodly?

That last question should also be answered many other signers, including:

Randy Brannon, Senior Pastor, Grace Community Church;

Rev. Jonathan Falwell, Senior Pastor, Thomas Road Baptist Church;

Dr. Jim Garlow, Senior Pastor, Skyline Church;

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary;

Dr. Michael Youssef, President, Leading Way;

Ravi Zacharias, Founder and Chairman of the board, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

(There are others of notoriety who signed the Manhattan Declaration, but who have already proved they cannot be taken seriously in the faith.) What say you?

Notes:

^1. List of Religious Leaders Signatories, “Manhattan Declaration,” Manhattan Declaration.org,  http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/sign/list-of-religious-leaders-signatories(accessed December 5, 2009).

^2. Pope Paul VI, Dogmatic Constitution On The Church, (Lumen Gentium) November 21, 1964. Ch 2, 14 (emphasis added).  http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

^3. Ibid. Ch 1, 8 (emphasis added).

It has been announced that Kathy Griffin’s acceptance speech on winning the creative arts Emmy will be censored by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences. While there is a portion of her speech that is offensive no matter who the object, and should be censored, her speech should be allowable where she said: “A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus.” That portion is protected free speech, and there is more to it than that.

Griffin went on to clarify that not only had she rejected Jesus as Lord and savior, but that she had chosen her own god; and she made her announcement it in what seemed to be a religious conversion experience that took place on the spot, proclaiming: “This award is my god now!” Ironically, Griffin will have her remarkable epiphany stricken for the telecast record by an academy where most of the members exhibit Griffin’s religious predilection to worship the statue, and all that surrounds it. But is it fair, and is it legal?

Obscene innuendos not withstanding, Griffin is well within her constitutional rights to exercise her religious beliefs by identifying her god, and thanking it for her success. In fact, Griffin may actually be more genuine than those who, in the same industry, so often thank Jesus for their accomplishments. Too many of them are those who run with the world, lie down with the world, sow with the world, reap with the world; and then stand up with a sheaf of the world’s harvest in their hand, and give thanks to Jesus. Do they honestly believe that such a cheap tribute will excuse them for being of the world? That is either disingenuous, or seriously deluded, but well within their rights also. All of this behavior has lost its shock value and has become common place, but surprises still spring from responses that it generates.

The Catholic League has taken a practically dim view of Griffin’s religious conversion to statue worship, requesting the TV academy formally denounce Griffin’s expression, and that is probably the most surprising response heard thus far. Few if any could have claimed to corner the market of stature worship like the Catholic Church has, and at the same time condemn some one else for following suit. As for finding Griffin’s speech objectionable, the Catholic Church could just as accurately state that no one had less to do with their statue worship than Jesus. Then they would, both of them, be telling the truth.

Is there a Christian response to the Griffins in the world? Besides prayer, and any sharing of the gospel they were able to do before such a pronouncement, there is this:

For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (Rom 9:17-24)

What does it all mean? For the short exegete, it means this: if you are reading this scripture, and yet you remain unmoved, there is a chance that God doesn’t want you; because God clearly doesn’t want some people. And that dichotomy is becoming clearer and clearer as the days grow shorter and shorter.

(story at Foxnews)

(more on obscene innuendo)

This is a News Service of TheNewsBeats.com, All Rights Reserved

Anyone familiar with Hank Hanegraaff and the Bible Answer Man radio program is also familiar with Hanegraaff’s dry and even sanctimonious voice that usually remains stable and clam; except when he is provoked into launching a defense of Preterism. On such occasions, the contortions he must go through in wresting the scriptures and bending hermeneutics to give the appearance of a straight line of reasoning gives the listener the impression he is actually in a wrestling match on his side of the microphone. It’s a match he inevitably losses every time, but of course the host of the program never calls it that way.

Fortunately, there are other forums where officiating is more objective.

In “Cracking ‘The Code’ of Preterism: a Review of Hank Hanegraaff’s ‘The Apocalypse Code’ and a Refutation of Preterism” by Ryan Habbena, the tortured exegesis of Hanegraaff, along with the contorted eschatology of Preterism, are given a sound rebuttal. Although the treatment must be cogent, as Habbena’s essay demonstrates, the fact that Preterism is is vulnerable from many points of attack only makes the task of assailing it more difficult from a selective standpoint. Apporaching it is like standing in line at an ice cream counter looking through the display case hoping to narrow your choice before being called on to order.

For instance, the subtitle of Hanegraaff’s book is “Find Out What The Bible Really Says About The End Times And Why It Matters Today,” but if Preterism were true: it wouldn’t matter today. That’s really the test for any eschatology; if there are no end time events, there is no end time study because there is no end times. Habbena points out nearly as much in his essay. In the two practical concerns Habbena voices over the theory of Presterism, where nearly everything connected to end time prophecy is supposed to have happened in A.D. 70, he finds: “It minimizes out future hope and removes a prime source of motivation for godly living.”

It could be added that, thirdly, Preterism entirely removes Israel and the Jew from eschatology; thus removing eschatology from the Bible. The twofold problems derived from this error are applying to the Church what is exclusively Israel’s (which misconstrues what the Church is, and is to do), and portraying the Jews as irrevocably castoff by God leaves them meet for scorn and disdain. For a clear example of the ensuing apostasy where Preterism is practiced, see the Roman Catholic Church. They claim that the promises and blessings regarding Israel have been conferred upon them, they imitate the Levitical priesthood and the mediatorial power of the High Priests, and they have been both complacent and complicit in infamous anti-Semitic atrocities.

Habbena’s essay can be found in Critical Issues Commentary, May/June 2007, at www.cicministry.org.

In a large gathering where Roman Catholic and various Protestant leaders addressed college students on progress of reunification with the Roman Catholic Church, Cardinal Dulles, S.J., stated that the long lasting and ongoing dialogue between the RRC and Lutheran and other churches has “been of immense value for dispelling past prejudices.”Using a form of conflict resolution cast as “conflict transformation,” Dr. Ann Riggs of the National Council of Churches declared that by these parties merely engaging in the dialogue process unity was being achieved. Claiming some 45 million members, the NCC has worked for decades to reunite wayward denominations with the RRC. By their estimation, Martin Luther was a prejudiced bigot who erroneously used the Bible to expose the apostasy of the RCC, but history and facts do not bear them out. Enough dialogue transformation, however, will certainly wear some out as the Mother of Harlots gathers her children in preparation for the endgame.

(read about it in The Christian Post)

In a statement that startled more than a few apostates, but surprised few real Protestants, Pope Benedict XVI singed off on a document last week that reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church’s claim to be the only true church. “Other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches,” the Pope said, “and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation.”

Perhaps proving that no heresy, or insult, is too hard for them to swallow, the Presbyterian Church (USA) is reported to “remain committed to ecumenical dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church.” This in spite of The Roman Catholic Church’s long standing proclamation that all Presbyterians, past and present–forefathers, relations and friends–who may have repented of their sins, and accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as their savior, have nonetheless gone to, and are going to, hell; so long as they have been, and remain, outside the RCC.

Such a biting blasphemy and scathing rebuke leveled at the work of the Holy Spirit and the security of the believer can hardly be surpassed except that the PCUSA should go forward and kiss the hand of this antichrist, and to sup at his table of unholy sacraments. Alas, this would not be an entirely new direction for PCUSA.

This is the same Presbyterian Church that in 2004 called for economic boycotts of Israel for the abominable act of erecting fences to keep homicide bombers from blowing up Israeli women and children. At the time, the Presbyterian Church actually countered the Israeli initiative with a suggestion that they build “bridges of peace rather than walls of separation.” At least they are consistent. By accepting this latest term of unconditional surrender to unmistakably join the Mother of Harlots, the PCUSA has shown that it not only loathes the Jews, but it betrays the Protestants of the Reformation, and denies the Lord of glory. This, in itself, would be enough treachery, but they are not alone.

Positioning them selves thus far to join the PCUSA in the falling away (2 Thess. 2:3) include the Lutheran World Federation and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. The season declares that it will not be long before they join the RCC, and many more former Protestant churches, and several different religions, will follow (some have speculated that the SBC is on the same path). While this is news, it is not new news: the scriptures foretold this two thousand years ago. Astute readers will remember what shortly follows the conclusion of the Apostasy, and know that the time is short.

(read about it in The Christian Post)