RELIGIOUS PLURALISM -
A SATANIC TRAP.
by W. B. Howard...Editor of Despatch
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you
than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said
before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you
than that ye have received, let him be accursed. " Galations 1:8,9;
An article by
Thorwald Lorenzen* (cf. p.29) entitled, "Baptists and the Challenge
of Religious Pluralism", came into our hands recently. Copies were distributed
from the Canberra Baptist Church, Australian Capital Territory. The Article
in a succinct form some of the main reasonings of those who advocate
religious pluralism, or the merging of the world's faiths into a unity
of peace and harmony, Unity in Diversity. It would seem sensible that Biblical,
God-fearing Christians, should grapple with some of these arguments, comparing
the Scriptures with what has become a global move towards syncretism of
all religions, as expressed through the above paper. We need to get
firmly settled in our minds that the Lord God Almighty does not want His
people to be drawn into pluralism for global peace. You and I need to have
answers ready to oppose those who seek a New Paradigm of Religion for AD
2000. If we have not been taken home by the Lord by AD 2000, we could
well be called upon by the "powers that be", in a global government,
to give answers as to "why" we will not embrace other religions in "tolerance."
We are walking the razor's edge of a worldwide agreement about the critical
necessity of UNITY amongst the earth's religions. Here we are addressing,
not just ecumenism, which is the unity of those who call themselves Christian,
but of the unity of all faiths - tribal religions, New Age goddess worshippers,
neo-pagan spiritualists, liberal Christians, Voodoo witch doctors, the
pseudo Christian cults and Roman Catholics.
THORWALD LORENZEN STATES.
"Baptists and the Challenge of Religious Pluralism" Review and
Expositor. 89 (1992), p.49:
"The fact of religious pluralism poses one of the great challenges
to Christian theology in general and to the theology of missions in particular.
Traditional answers are no longer satisfactory. For Christians to live
their identity in the modern world, and to understand their responsibility
in and to this world, it is imperative to develop a theology of religions."
We must ask ourselves, are these statements Biblically correct? "Traditional
answers" have nothing to do with God's people, God's instructions in the
Bible are our only authority, and these are eternally "satisfactory" in
every way. Christians do not just "develop" theology, nor is it imperative
to "develop a theology of religions". God has revealed exactly how we are
to react to other world religions, this is the only "theology" that is
imperative. Here is what God tells us about other religions:
"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven
or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many.) But to us there is
but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Cor.8:5-6).
The Bible tells us many things about false gods and goddesses, and the
Almighty Creator does not suggest anywhere that His people should unite
with these false gods, or give them respect and honour, rather the Lord
condemns the false gods in no uncertain manner. Just a few references of
a multitude to be found in the Biblical Scriptures: Ex.20:4-5; Deut.7:25-26;
11:16; Isaiah 42:8; Isaiah 45:20-21; Jer.10:5-6; 1Chr.16:26; Is.2:8-9;
Jer. 2:11; Jer.16:20; Dan.5:4; 1 Cor.12:2; Gal.4:8.
"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ,
hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the
Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine,
receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that
biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." (11 John
"Declare his glory among the heathen; his marvellous works among all
nations. For great is the Lord and greatly to be praised: he also is to
be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the people are idols: but
the Lord made the heavens." (1 Chron.16: 24-26).
p.49 of "Baptists and the Challenge of Religious Pluralism":
"Christian theology pursues such a theology of religions within
the parameters of God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ. It seeks to locate
the theological status of other religions, and to provide the theological
basis for our attitude to and relationship with people of other faiths.
Furthermore a theology of religions develops criteria by which religion
can be evaluated. And, finally, a theology of religions participates in
accepting responsibility for our world and its future by understanding
and communicating the spiritual resources that religions may contribute
to 'world peace and ... the building of a world community.'"
"God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ" can never allow for a "parameter"
which will embrace other religions in any way. Why? Because Christianity
is the revelation that God gave to ALL men, for all were lost in sin, and
He gave the whole world His only Begotten Son to die on the Cross as Saviour.
Christianity is not really a religion at all. The world's religions are
men seeking to find an answer in the darkness, reaching out to a God they
do not know, refusing to see that God has given His Only Son, and there
is no other way to the Father. The religions are often filled with demon
worship, devilish involvement in rites and practices which are not only
pagan, but are black magic, snake worshipping, demonic and wicked! The
religions of a lost world can never pool resources and contribute to world
peace thus building a world community. These religions do not have spiritual
resources, they have spiritual darkness. The only One who can bring world
peace is the Prince of Peace, the Lord Jesus Christ, when he sets up His
government in the Millennial Reign. There is no peace, saith the Lord,
unto the wicked. (Isaiah 48:22).
NO! The future belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ, and the meek shall inherit
the earth under His rule.
"The future belongs to the multi-cultural and multi-religious
THE BACK-BONE OF PLURALISM:
On page 50 of the Lorenzen paper many religions are mentioned in this
"pluralism" discussion. Hare Krishna, New Age Movement, Jehovah's Witnesses,
Scientology, Roman Catholic, Charismatics, Zen Buddhism, Baptists et al.
There is no suggestion that some of these religions are wrong, of Satan,
anti-Biblical or are condemned by God Almighty. Later the paper discusses
"objections" to pluralism, but the objections are weakly presented, and
are all but dismissed.
"No one can escape the fact of religious pluralism today!
It is an urgent and important matter for theological reflection."
The words, "what do we have in common" appear in the text.
In later comments, same page, Lorenzen gives the matter of "in common"
beliefs full attention:
"There are questions related to the reality of suffering and
death, questions related to the experience of evil and failure, apparent
lack of justice, that do not find answers within the context of an immanent
world view. All religions therefore deal with these questions and relate
their religious resources to them. A promise of religious pluralism is,
therefore, that it raises the question of meaning. It manifests the restlessness
of the human heart, and its longing for ultimate answers."
High sounding words! "All religions" do indeed deal in a sense with
the questions of life and death, but that is not to say that all religions
deal well with these questions. In fact the only answers to these questions
are found in God's revealed Word. There is only One Jesus Christ who is
the Way, the Truth and the Life. Neither can we say that there is truth
in all religions, that we are all saying basically the same, and that there
are many roads to God. For an example, a Hindu might say that there is
no real sin or righteousness, ALL is One, ALL is God. The Christian believes
the Bible and God has said that mankind has fallen into sin, everyone on
earth is a sinner. Christian and Hindu doctrines are not the same, they
are diametrically opposed. The same is true of other religions as well,
in relation to each other as well as to Christianity. It would be utterly
dishonest to declare that all religions have some truth and are basically
the same. Religious pluralism does not "raise the question of meaning",
it confuses the plain and simple fact of where the Truth is to be found,
in God's Word. Religious pluralism makes such an ambiguous smoke-screen
that the pure light of the Gospel is obliterated - and isn't that what
Satan wants? The Bible does not cause a longing for "ultimate answers",
it gives those who will heed its doctrines the ultimate answers from God.
The Bible causes the "restless heart" in man to be at peace, and mere religion
can never do this, especially when the religion is pagan, devilish, filled
with Goddess-worshipping feminists or Mary idolaters, or venerates a mere
man in a dress who calls himself "Father God", and declares he is infallible!
WHAT DOES THE BIBLIOGRAPHY
FOR FURTHER STUDY SHOW?
The paper by Lorenzen reveals much by its bibliography. The books cited
and recommended are One World Church books, Parliament of World's Religions
literature. There is a large proportion of literature from the compiler
of "A Global Ethic", Hans Kung. This man is a prime mover in the thrust
of the New World Order globalists toward a common faith for all. The material
cited is heavily New Age dominated. No, not the idiot fringe of the New
Age, tarot card readers and meditators, we are talking about here the academic,
elitist New Agers.
Lorenzen quotes from these sources, dare I comment 'sinister' sources:
1. The Vatican 11 "Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to
Non-Christian Religions." (Nostra Aetete .)
2. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976,
Art.18:2) and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance
and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (1981, Art.1:2) as quoted
in A. F. Carillo de Albornoz, The Basis of Religious Liberty (London: SCM,
The reader needs to understand that the material from Lorenzen is not
an isolated, personally presented view. This is the New Age New World Order's
propaganda. Let us examine further:
HANS KUNG, compiler of "A Global Ethic.
He is a globalist theologian who has a Catholic background. Illuminati
backed, Kung has said,
"Any form of ...church conservatism is to be rejected ... To
put it bluntly: no regressive or repressive religion - whether Christian,
Islamic, Jewish or of whatever provenance - has a long-term future."
In the Sep./Oct. 1994 issue of The Futurist, in an essay entitled "Temples
of Tomorrow: Towards a United Religions Organisation," Richard Kirby of
the World Network of Religious Futurists and the late Earl D.C. Brewer
( "Global Responsibility: In Search of a New World Ethic." New York:
Crossroad. 1991. p.23).
"Religions are now headed toward what may eventually form a United
Religions Organisation (URO), structured in much the same way as the United
Nations and the sharing the same goals."
Once the URO is created, they predict, the organisation will be given the
task of creating a "New Covenant" for the entire planet earth. Hans Kung
should be considered the author of the first draft of this United Nation's
"New Covenant" for religions.
Here is what Christian writer William Norman Grigg reveals about Kung
and the New Covenant,
in his book "Freedom on the Altar", p.183:
"Kung also suggested 'A world-wide dialogue, global dialogue,
... which would lead to the building of a consensus on a Global Ethos.'
Who did fund that Parliament? The Theosophical UN and the Rockefeller Brothers
Thoughtfully, by that time, Kung had already composed the first
draft of the 'Global Ethos' in his 1991 Global Responsibility: In Search
of a New World Ethic. In the spirit of the eco-pantheistic 'biological
worldview,' Kung insists that religious conviction in the new world order
must include 'action in global responsibility for the whole of the biosphere...
[T]his includes a self-imposed limitation by human beings on their freedom
in the present for the sake of their survival in the future' - particularly
with respect to population growth.
Like nearly every apologist for a global leviathan state, Kung
repeatedly invokes the concept of 'pluralism.' However, he leaves little
doubt that the practise of 'pluralism' would be aggressively monolithic
... Kung's co-author Leonard Swindler pointed out, an event would have
to be held to devise a binding Global Ethos. Stated Swindler:
'The question is who will fund it and who will appoint its scholars.'
This question was answered in 1993
at the second Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago."
THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS.
Lorenzen cites this document, what is it? The United Nations covenant
drawn up by that occult-controlled Body.
In his book "Freedom on the Altar," William Norman Grigg has this to
say about the supposed "rights" of religions under the UN's tyranny:
"As is the case with all of the other 'freedoms' supposedly guaranteed
by the UN's founding instruments,
Grigg calls the UN's International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights,
Article 18, which deal with religious 'freedom', "devious language"! He
comments on the UN Covenants:
the UN's concept of religious liberty is purely utilitarian: It
is predicated upon the idea that the individual is free to obey the whims
of the governing elite."
"The mischief in these assurances is found in the assumption
that government enjoys the privilege of parcelling out freedoms to its
subjects, rather than the duty to recognise the sovereign, God-given rights
of naturally free men. The UN presumes to dictate what religious freedom
'shall include'. It is also worth noting that while the body would forbid
'coercion which would impair [the] freedom to have a religion or belief,'
it does not forbid coercion which would suppress EXPRESSION of that belief
- although the language quoted above might lure the inattentive into thinking
otherwise. Furthermore, nothing in the religious 'freedom' declaration
nullifies the principle contained in the UN covenants on civil and political
rights - namely, that government can proscribe individual liberties in
the name of the 'common good.'"
Do you realise reader that the UN body believed it "could oblige the national
government to use its powers ... to override Tasmania's state law" back
in 1992? The Tasmanians have a Biblically-based state law, and the UN has,
in principle, the power to do this on any issue, to bring about its own
concept of religious "freedom." The UN wants a harmonisation from all religions
on its own religious concepts, and how they should be administered globally.
TO FINISH THIS SECTION.
Lorenzen has shown in his paper's bibliography that the material he
has presented is globalism, politically motivated, pluralism of the New
Age - and it is also Vatican ideology. It is the One World Church propaganda
of the New World Order.
LORENZEN AND RELIGIOUS PLURALISM.
As we get back to the text of the paper by Lorenzen, we should remember
that he is presenting: A New Age Globalists' political agenda. This is
being implemented, not only in the Australian religious world, but on every
continent on the earth. The religious pluralism of the globalists is undergirded
by the double-speak, totalitarian covenants of the United Nations, behind
which lurks the NWO organizations, such as the Club of Rome, the Committee
of Three Hundred, the Bilderbergers, the Rockefellers and International
Banking, the World Federalists et al.
ON page 51 of "Baptists and the Challenge of Religious Pluralism", by
Thorwald Lorenzen, the following statement is made:
"The traditional distinction between 'true' and 'false' religion
is a reminder that religious faith can become inhuman. Instead of helping
people to live with dignity and to die with hope, it can spell fear, superstition,
and injustice to people ... The fact of religious pluralism does not imply
a philosophy of religious pluralism in which all religious convictions
and practices are equally true; rather, it raises the question of what
is true and what is false. Before we investigate these matters further,
we must recall our task of bringing the Baptist vision into correlation
with religion (sic) pluralism."
Here we see an undermining of complete faith in the Biblical revelation
as given by the Creator God. Christians base their faith not on "traditional
distinction" but on the Truth as found in God's Word. The only way, truth
and life is in Jesus Christ, He told us so! No person can live with "dignity
and die with hope" unless they have received new life in Christ Jesus,
and have been justified through trust in His shed Blood on the Cross. To
sift through various beliefs of other religions and say, " this is much
the same as the Biblical doctrine, this is not, this is", would be meaningless,
for GOD has given the WORLD His revelation in the Bible. Or worse, to examine
other religions and say, "this is something we haven't got in the Scriptures,
let's add that, this bit is fascinating and helpful, we need this understanding."
This would be disastrous in a spiritual sense, disobedience to God and
would be syncretism in its most heinous expression! The Word of God does
not need to be added to, in fact there is a curse upon those who add to
God's Word. God's Word is not a tradition which can be confused and "improved
on", it is sacred. (Deut.4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Rev.22:19).
Page 52 of Lorenzen's paper:
"Baptists need to be reminded, however, that besides soteriological
orientation on Jesus Christ there is equally biblical emphasis that God
is not only the redeemer, but that He is also the creator of heaven and
earth (Gen. 1-2; Deutero Isaiah). The early Christians therefore confessed
Jesus Christ not only as saviour, but also as the mediator of creation:
"all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made
that was made. In him was life and the life was the light of men" (John
1:3f.). And apart from the Spirit of God there can be no life at all:...
The commitment to biblical authority therefore challenges Baptists not
to limit the freedom and mystery of God, but to think of God as the redeemer
and creator, who will lead his creation to its final fulfilment in Him."
What seems to be the rhetoric here is:
That Jesus Christ is not only saviour, God the Father is not only the
redeemer, but that God also created everything. Since God created the earth
and heavens, and all people on the earth, therefore the religions of the
earth have been given light, and will one day be a part of the "final fulfilment
in Him." This is far from true, as any Bible student would know. We only
have to read the first two chapters of the book of Romans to see that.
The Bible shows that Christians are debtors to all men (Rom.1:14) to
give them the unadulterated Gospel of God's grace in Jesus Christ (Rom.1:16-17).
The Scriptures show in many places that the whole world is fallen, and
reveals the guilt of mankind (Rom.1:18-22). God shows the terrible wrath
which He will bring upon the pagan and pantheistic religions in Romans
1:22-28. The idolaters and worshippers of demon gods will not take part
in the "final fulfilment in Him", they will be in everlasting punishment.
(John 3:17-18; 1 John 5:11-12; Rev.21:27; Rev.21:8 etc.). There is no "freedom
and mystery" in God that will cause Him to cancel out His revealed will
in bringing salvation only through the sacrifice of His Only Begotten Son.
We Christians are debtors to all men, to bring them the good news of salvation
in Christ. We have no mandate to cloud the message by suggesting that everything
will be all right in the end, if the world's religions follow the "light"
in their own beliefs, and trust in the "final fulfilment in Him."
God has warned His people that if we even bid those who bring false
doctrines "God speed", or receive them into our houses, then we become
"partaker of his evil deeds." (11 John 1:10-11).
IS OUR FAITH TRUE?
ARE OTHER FAITHS ALSO TRUE?
On page 54 of the Lorenzen paper a brain-teaser appears. This kind
of argumentation could well be levelled at any of the Christian fellowships
in coming days! How would you answer? Would you be able to uncover the
errors and deceptions in the statements? Let's have a look:
"Our claim to truth must therefore be carefully distinguished
from any attempt to absolutize our understanding of faith. For this reason
Protestantism have insisted, that we must distinguish between
The above statements are not logical! Because we do not understand fully
the revelation of God as contained in the Scriptures, does that mean that
we do not have all Truth in them? As much Truth as God has willed to present
to man? Just because we Christians do not have a full grasp of the perfect
Word of God, inspired by the Lord in the original documents, does that
alter the Word of God itself? NO! The mysteries of God have been revealed
in the perfect Word of God, it is THE TRUTH. We Christians, as a religion
(basically we are not a religion), do not claim to have "captured" the
truth. We have responded to the Living Truth, Jesus Christ, and have submitted
to the Truth in the miracle book, the Bible, God's Word. We do not claim
to have captured the truth, the truth has captured us, our souls and hearts
can declare - "Ye shall know the Truth,
Jesus Christ as the author, ground and content of faith, and
our understanding of him ... Christians are "
people on the way", they "walk by faith, not by sight" (11 Cor
5:7), trying to be obedient to what they have understood of the mysteries
of God.... Christians therefore need to distinguish between their confession
to Jesus Christ as the truth, and a claim that Christianity is the only
real religion. The truth cannot be captured by any religion, including
the Christian religion. The truth can only be approximated. We may therefore
say that in our view the truth of a religion is contained in its approximation
to Jesus Christ as the most adequate interpretation of the reality 'God'
that is accessible to us."
and the Truth shall make you free." (John 8:32).
I as a human being, saved by God through Jesus Christ my Lord and Saviour,
might still be "on the way" walking by "faith not by sight", but that does
not mean that the enormity of the revelation of God in the Canon of Scripture
is "on the way". "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." (11
Tim.3:16). "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. Thy faithfulness
is unto all generations..." (Psalm 119:89-90). The above argument by Lorenzen
casts shabby doubt upon the very Word of God, by pointing the finger at
the imperfections of the believers, instead of beholding the objective
Truth as found in the inspired Canon of faith which is the Revelation of
the Almighty God. The Bible is the Eternal Word of God. "For ever, O Lord,
thy word is settled in heaven."
TRUTH IN OTHER RELIGIONS?
Lorenzen makes this Statement on page 57:
"But what about other religions? Do we have to deny truth to
other religions? Being aware of our own shortcomings, and at the same time
witnessing the devotion for God and for justice by people like Mahatma
Gandhi and the Dalai Lama, can we assert that God has limited His grace
to Christians or to the Judeo-Christian tradition? Or could we agree with
the Vatican 11 affirmation that, without denying their own commitment to
Jesus Christ, Christians can and should acknowledge truth in other religions?
(Footnote given for The Vatican 11 'Declaration on the Relationship of
the Church to Non-Christian Religions' [Nostra Aetete 1965].) The early
Christians obviously thought so. They used titles, which were used in other
religions, like 'Messiah' ('Christ'), 'Son of Man', "Kyrios' ('Lord') and
related them to Jesus Christ, would apply to people who had died without
specific knowledge of Christ [1 Pet.3:19f., 4:6). At this point it is important
to recall that the biblical message does not limit God's activity to the
historical revelation in the Judeo-Christian tradition. In the Old Testament
God does not only make a covenant with Israel, but also with creation,
and with all the people of the world (Gen.8-9). With the election of Abram
a blessing is promised for all the nations of the world (Gen. 12:3). God
uses heathen kings and nations to carry out his providential will and judgement,
even against his own elect (Isa. 10:5f., 44:28,45:1; Jer 27:6-15; 11 Chr.
38:22f; Ezra 1:1, 4:3, 5:13-17. 6:3-5). In Isaiah and Amos other nations
(Egypt, Assyria, Ethiopia, Philistine, Syria) feature alongside of Israel
in the eschological and soteriological plans of YHWH (Isa 19:23-25; Amos
9:7). The book of Ruth is a corrective against Israel's claim to exclusiveness
with regard to marriage and membership in the covenant, and the book of
Jonah portrays an understanding of God which includes the Ninevites in
His love, and at the same time it is critical of Jonah the Israelite man
of God. ...from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among
the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure
offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.
But you profane it ... (Mal 1:11f.)" (End of quote from Lorenzen).
WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?
It would seem obvious that the above arguments have been cleverly expressed!
The average church-goer would have no answer to give, when confronted with
the circuitous reasoning of those who demand the recognition of religious
pluralism amongst Christians! Could we take especial attention to the arguments,
and sort them out for future reference? These reasonings will be levelled
against those who oppose religious syncretism in any fellowship or denomination,
not just the Baptists. Will your fellowship be able to answer with conviction
and Biblical Truth? Will you be able to help the weaker Christians who
may be convinced by such arrogant, false words? Let's go over the main
arguments together, it may be imperative in the near future for you to
understand why the above is false:
1. "Being aware of our own shortcomings..."
Here the emphasis is directed at the imperfect people who profess Christianity,
not on the infallible Word of God. Christianity has a sure Word which has
no "shortcomings", the Bible is the revelation of the Creator God.
2. "...the devotion for God and for justice by people
Mahatma Gandhi and the Dalai Lama..."
These men had/have no 'devotion for God', both were/are not born-again
Christians, they could never come to the Father God except by the Son,
Jesus Christ, and they both refused the Saviour. Mahatma Gandhi, contrary
to popular opinion, was not a man of the true God. He was given to strange
occult practices as a Hindu. He, for instance, would sleep with naked young
girls, more than one at a time, to prove his sexual control to himself.
His disciples drank the Mahatma's urine as they were taught it was holy!
The Dalai Lama is a Buddhist, who does not even believe in God as a Being,
not in the way that we do! The Dalai Lama works closely with the New Age
New World Order, he is a co-worker with Gorbachev, the Rockefellers, the
United Nations, Bill Clinton, Maurice Strong, Robert Muller, and others
of the Internationalists who are plotting for a One World Religion.
3. "...can we assert that God has limited his grace
to Christians or to the Judeo-Christian tradition?"
The Lord has not limited His grace to Christians, God HAS limited His
grace to His only Begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ! The record of what
God, in His love, did for the world, is found only in the Word of God.
Here alone is Grace to a sinful, lost world - Jesus Christ died on the
Cross for the sin of mankind, "For God so loved the world, that he
gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not
perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16).
ALL other religions but Christianity try to come to God through works
of some sort, doing penance, abusing their bodies with shocking tortures,
as do the Indian gurus, or seeking to win favour by masses, church attendance,
good deeds and rituals. NONE but Christianity presents the Truth of Christ
Crucified as the Lamb of God, the pagan religions altogether teach falsehood!
They may be sincere, but either the Bible is wrong or they are, and the
Bible is NOT a lie! Is Christianity a "Judeo-Christian tradition"? Hardly!
What shameful dishonour to the Lord God to reduce His revelation in the
Scriptures to mere "tradition"!
4. "Or could we agree with the Vatican 11 affirmation
that, without denying their own commitment to Jesus Christ, Christians
can and should acknowledge truth in other religions."
Christians who love the Lord God and Truth could never agree with the
Vatican - full stop! The Vatican's false teaching has sent countless multitudes
to a Christless eternity, and continues to do so even to our own day:
"Vatican 11 repeatedly teaches salvation by works. Any active
Catholic is earning his salvation. Some priests and nuns even today put
stones in their shoes, wear haircloth shirts, and flagellate themselves
Read how the Vatican pronounces a curse (anathema) on any one who trusts
in Christ Jesus alone for salvation, how does this honour the Truth in
the Bible? (Eph 2:8-9; 1 John 5:10-13).
earn their salvation. Go to any Catholic country on Church holidays
and see penitents beating themselves, pilgrims crawling upon their knees
toward some Marian shrine, others staggering under heavy crosses, and still
others hoping to better their chances of salvation by purchasing candles
to burn before an image
of 'our lady' of this or that or some other 'saint.' In some
places, such as the Philippines, a few zealots even have themselves nailed
to crosses to hang in agony for a time to pay at least part of the price
for their own salvation and for others as well. Far from rebuking these
efforts, Rome encourages them. Salvation by
works is so clearly taught in Rome's dogmas and so widely practiced
by the faithful that none can deny it." ("A Woman Rides the Beast"
by Dave Hunt, p.356. Harvest House Pub.)
"If anyone says that in order to obtain the remission of sins
it is necessary ... to believe with certainty and without any hesitation
... that his sins are forgiven him, let him be anathema (Council of Trent,
Six, XV1,13). "If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of
justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment
so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment
remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the
gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema."
5. DID EARLY CHRISTIANS USE PAGAN RELIGIOUS TITLES?
(H.J. Schroeder, O.P., trans., The Canons and Decrees of the Council
of Trent (Tan Books, 1978) p.46.)
"They (the early Christians) used titles, which were used in other
religions ... and related them to Jesus."
What titles does this author refer to? "Messiah". This was a Jewish
title, Christianity came from Judaism as a source. Messiah becoming "Christ"
was not taking a title from another religion, it was merely establishing
the New Covenant of Grace in the Church Age, under the same God which the
Jews worshipped. "Son of Man" is not a title from another pagan religion.
It is the name which Jesus Christ called Himself. It was used no less than
forty three times in the New Testament as a distinctive title of the Saviour,
Jesus Christ. "Kyrios" or "Kurios" is merely the Greek equivalent of the
Hebrew Jehovah. The New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew. There
is no using of other religious titles here, and certainly not for the Lord
6. DOES THE BIBLE TEACH OTHER RELIGIONS
CAN FIND SALVATION OUTSIDE OF CHRIST JESUS?
"They (the early Christians) also thought that the salvation
which they had experienced in Jesus Christ, would apply to people who had
died without the specific knowledge of Christ. (1 Pet 3:19f; 4:6)."
Is the above true? Not at all, as you will see as you read the passages
of Scripture quoted, 1 Pet 3:19; 4:6. This is the "vicarious suffering
of Christ, preached by Christ through the Spirit in Noah." (1 Pet 3:19.
C.I. Scofield.) 1 Pet 4:6 refers to the same subject. There have been various
interpretations of these verses, but never could they be applied to people
who have died without specifically knowing Christ as Saviour, nor could
they find salvation unless they had trusted Jesus Christ as Saviour when
they were physically alive. The entire New Testament makes such an interpretation
(See an example 1 John 5:11-12; 11 Cor 6:2).
7. DOES GOD MAKE A COVENANT WITH ALL PEOPLES?
"In the Old Testament God does not only make a covenant with
Israel, but also with creation,
Here it is suggested that God had entered into a covenant relationship
with other religions as well as Israel, as shown in the O.T. And that therefore,
it is implied, Christianity must recognise that God has made a covenant
with other religions, pagan, tribal, New Age, Catholic, Hindu etc., etc.,
because they are a part of creation. Is this so? No!
and with all the people of the world (Gen. 8-9)."
The passage referred to in Gen 8-9 is the Noahic Covenant, which does
not promise special agreements from the Almighty God with pagan religions.
It establishes human government (Gen 9-16); shows that God will never again
destroy by a universal flood (Gen 8:21; 9:11); deals with man's relationship
to the earth, and the Adamic Covenant is confirmed (Gen 8;21). There are
NO special covenants with pagan religions which gives them a right to be
declared as having God's Truth. Lorenzen is simply fabricating a fanciful
interpretation of the passage to suit his own (and the New Age's) agenda
for the One World religion.
8. WHAT WAS ABRAM'S BLESSING
TO ALL NATIONS OF THE WORLD?
Lorenzen gives the impression that God has blessed all the nations of
the world, by giving all of their religions a measure of truth, and His
approval. Not so. How did God bless all the nations of the world through
Abram? "In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed..." (Gen
12:3) This is a part of the Abrahamic Covenant. God promises that through
the seed of Abraham all the nations would be blessed because the Saviour
would be born, Jesus Christ. The nations are blessed because there is now
a way of salvation opened to them in God's Only Begotten Son. (Gal 3:16;
John 8:56-58). This reference in Gen 12:3 is actually the great evangelical
promise fulfilled in One only, Jesus Christ, and shows the lie of Lorenzen's
9. HOW DID GOD USE HEATHEN KINGS AND NATIONS?
God did not condone the religious practices of the heathen, only a casual
reading of the Old Testament shows that clearly. That God sometimes used
the heathen to bring judgement on Israel when they were disobedient, that
He showed the heathen mercy, and sometimes used them to bring about His
will, in no way shows that God approved the religious practices of the
pagans! They were worshipping evil spirits, and sacrificing their children
to Baal, and Ashteroth.
The O.T. nations were called "goyim", the heathen, and the Jews were
strictly forbidden to be associated with them in any way (Josh. 23:7; 1
Kings 11:2). They were idolaters, and called by God "the wicked." (Ps.
9:5; 15,17). See also Ps 106:47; Jer 46:28. The N.T. word for the nations
has the same meaning as "goyim", it is "ethne".
10. What does Malachi 1:11 really say?
The religious pluralists will seek to tell us that in every place that
religious incense is offered, it is offered in the name of God, even though
the religions may call God by another name, perhaps Buddha or Shiva, maybe
Krishna? The religious pluralists will seek to convince us that God's name
is great amongst the nations, and that their religions are really worshipping
the God of the Bible. Does Mal 1:11 tell us this? Not at all!
The passage in Malachi 1:11 has nothing to do with pagan, tribal and occult
religions being approved of God, the God of the Bible that is. It is a
prophecy that can only be fulfilled when Christ Jesus is received in the
hearts of the peoples of the nations, world-wide. There is no thought here
that the Gentiles will worship under the Mosaic ritual, but that in the
New Dispensation genuine spiritual worship will be offered to Jehovah by
the nations (Ps 141:2; Rom 12:1; Heb. 13:15). The Jewish priests were offering
worthless sacrifices in the time when Malachi wrote, but one day the Gentile
nations would worship with a "pure offering" in Christ Jesus. We see this
in the Church Age, and will see a greater fulfilment in the Millennial
Reign of Christ.
The Authorised Version shows a different picture from the one Lorenzen
painted in the above quote: p.14
"For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the
same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense
shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be
great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts." (KJV).
THE GLOBAL VILLAGE AND ITS CRITERIA.
On page 61 of Lorenzen's paper a chilling conclusion develops! A virtual
New World Order ultimatum, ah la United Nations. I will go carefully over
the "criteria" which is divided into "Formal Criteria" and "Content Criteria."
This will be only the beginning as such ultimatums, believers, we need
to consider very carefully what is being foisted upon us in Religious Pluralistic
"solutions." The New World allows no dissenter or discord.
"It is generally recognised, even by religious pluralists, that
criteria must be developed by which the authenticity and credibility of
religious faith can be measured. We want to suggest some formal and some
content criteria by which religious faith (including our own, of course!)
can be measured. These criteria arise out of a Christian vision of reality;
but hopefully they are open and transparent enough to make a dialogue with
other interpretations of life possible."
In the above Lorenzen footnotes his source as being "The Myth of Christian
Uniqueness. Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions." (1989), edited
by John Hick and Paul F. Knitter.
Paul F. Knitter is referred to in the footnotes again, this time in
connection with Hans Kung, the compiler of the Global Ethic, a document
prepared for the New World Order. Knitter appears to be a Roman Catholic,
as he also wrote, "Catholic Theology of Religions at a Crossroads."
Simply put, Lorenzen and fellow apostates are telling Christians:
We have to agree to a standard measure thought out (by whom?) by which
it can be decided whether the doctrines and 'faith' of religions can be
found (by whom?) to be real and believable! We have to have a formal (enforceable?)
measure, so that everyone can be pushed into that mold, to make them so
confused that they will "dialogue". With whom? "other interpretations of
life", those who do not agree with our "interpretation" found in the infallible
Word of God.
"First of all, that religious faith MUST OPEN ITSELF to EVALUATION
and VERIFICATION. Such openness to self-criticism MUST include the willingness
not to use the process of verification simply to justify one's own faith
and condemn the faith of others." (Emphasis added.)
Here we see the beginning of a new religious persecution against those
who will not comply to the demands of the One World State. Those religions
which do not fit the prescribed "verification" will not be "justified".
A few examples of what this "verification" could entail might well be:
1. Expressions of what the NWO consider "sexism" or "racism" or "homophobia"
in the Bible are not "verifiable" as Truth. "Evaluation" demands these
must be deleted.
2. All Biblical passages or church doctrines which imply, suggest or
actively express hostility to, or criticism of any other religions must
be condemned. (This would include Romans 1 without a doubt, and scores
of N. T. and OT passages).
3. Creation by a Transcendent God, who is a Father in Heaven, would
not be "verifiable" in the New World, the "global village". Pantheistic
religion, which worships the Earth Mother Gaia, is now the "in thing" globally.
Evolution and Sophia "Mother God" are "verifiable", Creationism and Father
God are not.
"This implies, secondly, that the measure to evaluate one's faith
must in some way be EXTERNAL to the experience and the manifestation of
that faith. In the event of faith the object-referent must be given procedural
priority over the subject-referent." (Emphasis added.)
This appears to be a direct admission that "verification" and "evaluation"
will be carried out in the "global village" by those who are not in any
way involved with the religion being "verified." These are to be given
"procedural priority". Outside "evaluators" are to be given pre-eminence,
higher rank, in the New Age purge to bring about religious syncretism.
"Thirdly, the truth and credibility of a religious faith must
show itself in the life situations of the believers, in the context of
their society, and in the context of a world that must be understood today
as a 'global village'. In light of our contemporary world situation one
should, fourthly, suggest that such criteria must not intensify the separation,
mistrust, and enmity among the religions. Rather they should make conversations,
openness, and dialogue possible, so that religions can become a healing
force in a sick world."
Here we see that Christianity will be subjected to a evaluation on its
"truth" and "credibility" after the standards of the New Age "global village".
It is just another religion to the NWO, on the same level (or lower?) as
the Taoists and the Goddess witches. Whether "true" or "credible" will
depend on how the One World society views our "life situations". Do we
say that tribal worshippers of the Rainbow Serpent need to find Jesus Christ
as Saviour? Will we yield to moral and spiritual demands of the New Age,
with its abortion, euthanasia, homosexual rights, radical feminism, seances,
transcendental meditations and earth harmonies? The world is sick indeed,
it needs the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and only Christians can proclaim that!
Here we get to the nucleus of religious pluralism,
as expressed by Lorenzen pp.61-62:
"Turning now to the content criteria we agree with Stanley J.
Samartha that any solution must be theologically credible, spiritually
satisfying, and pastorally helpful. As human beings we are responsible
for the dignity and survival of human life. Since human life cannot survive
apart from a healthy environment any criteria must include the ecological
dimension to life. An authentic religious faith, then, must contribute
to making and keeping life human. This means, of course, that verification
hinges on the understanding of the humanum. This is not the place to develop
an anthropology. We can only mention the parameters for a Christian understanding
of the humanum, and what consequences this has for measuring and verifying
truth of a religious faith."
The above tells us that the Christian faith (in our case) must be "verified"
by its content being in agreement with the agenda of the impious, infidel
human beings who are in control of this planet of woe! Since when for that
matter, did the Creator God tell us that WE are responsible for the survival
of human life? What arrogance is this? Our Creator will soon send His Son,
Jesus Christ, to take the government of this world upon His shoulder (Isaiah
9:6-7). Then, and only then, will the curse upon the earth which happened
in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1-3) be repealed. Then, and only then, will
the One responsible for human life's survival be in authority as the Potentate
of the planet (1 Timothy 6:14-16). We are not responsible for the survival
of the planet or its inhabitants, GOD is. The idea of humans being the
saviours of the planet and its inhabitants intensifies in Lorenzen's discourse.
These two points, among others, can only be dealt with here, as the material
is verbose. p.62:
"The human being is also, fourthly, woven into the delicate fabric
of nature, and therefore accepting responsibility for the environment and
resisting the further exploitation of nature is also part of the humanum.
We are, finally, historical beings and as such with our activity we are
responsible for the
The New Age globalisation which is occurring at the close of the millennium
already has mapped out what constitutes a "religious faith" that "radiates
the hope and responsibility that paves the way for a human survival of
the human race." Note the NWO propaganda "resisting the further exploitation
of nature." To understand the full implications of the environmental scams
of the NWO and the neo-pagan occultism of Gaia Mother Earth beliefs, and
how 'she' is the object of worship of the global One Worlders, is beyond
the scope of a small booklet like this one. (See the authors book, "The
Environmental Movement", available from Despatch.) The material by Lorenzen
is a bridge into the New Age "One World, One Mind", and everything that
pertains to the environmental plan of that Gaia Mother Earth global society.
survival and future of humanity. Does religious faith radiate
the hope and the responsibility that paves
the way for a human survival of the human race?"
THE NECESSITY OF MISSION AND EVANGELISM.
In the closing section under "Content Criteria", the subject of mission
and evangelism is raised. The heading looks promising, does it mean that
in the New World Christians will be "allowed" to have missions and evangelise?
Not as we know these terms, certainly not!
Let us look then at Lorenzen's statements p.63:
"...We must recognise, however, that Christianity is not the
only missionary religion. We know the missionary impulse in Islam and Buddhism,
and we meet missionaries of different religious movements in our daily
lives. Anyone who has experienced faith as an integrating reality of life
knows the inner impulse to share with others what has become important
On the surface these dictates appear reasonable enough, until one realises
how open-ended, how subjugating they are. The words could mean that just
about any kind of evangelism could be termed "coercion." How about declaring
that people are sinners? Psychological and moral pressure. How about trying
to convince a tribal man that his worship of rocks, trees, hills and idols
is wrong, and seeking to save him from his paganism and fear of evil spirits?
We did not respect his dignity and his cultural honour and rights. How
about the homosexual who believes that his "conscience" tells him that
sleeping with other men is not immoral? Can we say a word, or seek to turn
him from his sin and separation from God? No, we must abstain from "coercion"
and allow him to freely follow his own conscience. What about writing leaflets
to explain that the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the New Agers, or the Goddess
Sophia worshippers are not of God, and are deceived by Satan? Coercion,
taking away these peoples' right to evangelise and believe according to
their own consciences and belief systems. What about saying that Christ
Jesus is the only Saviour, that Truth alone is in the Bible? This would
be breaking the United Nations "rights" declaration, it insults other religions,
makes them out to be erroneous. Our mouths would be stopped, we use "coercion"
with fear of hell-fire. The possibilities are endless under UN "rights"
...According to universal human rights people have the right to
follow their voice of conscience and to change their religious affiliations.
It must be realised that genuine religious faith cannot be coerced.
Coercion takes place when institutional, psychological, moral, or social
pressure is placed upon people so that they cannot make a free and voluntary
choice. Both, United Nations instruments and church declarations therefore
insist that one must abstain from all psychological, social, economic,
and political coercion in religious matters. In our evangelism and mission
it needs to be transparent that we are concerned with the holistic welfare
of people, and that we respect their dignity and their inherent right to
freely follow the voice of their own conscience." (Page 63).
DO CHRISTIANS REALLY SHARE IN EVANGELISM
BECAUSE THEY HAVE EXPERIENCED FAITH:
"...as an integrated reality of life" so we know "the inner impulse
to share with others what has become important to" ourselves?
Why do we evangelise? Because the only Living God has given us a mandate
to do so. Because we are owe the Gospel message to ALL men, not just those
who have no existing religious convictions. Because we must exhort, warn,
tell of wrath to come, speak the words that the Holy Spirit will use to
convict of sin, righteous and judgement to come. Because all those outside
of Christ will go to an eternity in hell, if we do not preach God's Gospel
of Grace and Mercy to them. Because we are not ashamed of the Gospel of
the Lord Jesus Christ, and no United Nations or church board can ever be
recognised as having the "right" to dictate or make laws to define what
is psychological, moral, religious, political or social "coercion".
"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block,
and unto the Greeks foolishness. But unto them which are called, both Jew
and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." ( 1 Cor.1:
23-24.) "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth
not shall be damned." (Mark 16:15-16.) "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.)
The concluding remarks of "Baptists and the Challenge of Religious
Pluralism", by Thorwald Lorenzen, and the bibliography, say
it ALL! The names of some of these books leave us with no doubt at all
about the direction that religious pluralism is taking - beyond mere ecumenism
into a syncretism of all global religions under the UN! Consider the implications
of these titles from Lorenzen's bibliography:
"Is Christ the Only Way? Christian Faith in a Pluralistic World."
Mark S. Helm.
"Love the Stranger. Ministry in Multi-Faith Areas." Hooker,
Roger and Lamb.
"On Being a Christian." by Hans Kung.
"Theology for the Third Millennium. An Ecumenical View." by
"Christianity and the World Religions. Paths of Dialogue with Islam,
Hinduism, and Buddhism." by Hans Kung and others.
"Death or Dialogue?" From the Age of Monologue to the Age of
Dialogue. By Leonard Swindler, Leonard, Cobb Jr., Knitter, Hellwig and
What about the documents and quotes in the bibliography which are cited
by Lorenzen? They make quite a statement by themselves, as we consider
who and what has influenced this religious pluralism "dialogue". Can the
reader see the political, New Age socialistic, and global power structures
in the background study of Lorenzen and his ilk?
Consider these documents and statements from Lorenzen's footnotes:
"Religious pluralism is one of the motivating factors in the
ecumenical search for a NEW PARADIGM of theology. Compare: Hans Kung and
David Tracy, eds., PARADIGM CHANGE IN THEOLOGY." (Emphasis added).
THE UN OF RELIGIONS?
"LEONARD SWINDLER says that in face of a potential nuclear catastrophe
'the future offers two alternatives: death or dialogue";..."
"Golden Jubilee Congress" (Ninth World Congress) Official Report.
Arnold T. Ohrn, ed.
The Vatican 11 "Declaration of the Relationship of the Church
to Non-Christian Religions." (Nostra Aetete (1965).
"The Myth of Christian Uniqueness. Towards a Pluralistic Theology
of Religions." Hick and Knitter.
"Dialogue and Syncretism." Gort, Vroom, Ferhout & Wessels,
The excellent quote from William Norman Griggs, given previously, should
alert us all to the dangers of the New World Religious Syncretism, which
masquerades under many names, including:
DECLARATION OF A GLOBAL ETHIC
Consensus for a Global Ethos and
One World One Mind religion.
Be not deceived, the "dialogue" on "Interfaith" and "pluralism" which
is growing tremendously, as we rush toward AD 2000, is not unstructured.
It is an integral part of the UN's "Declaration of a Global Ethic". We
should understand what Christians are facing in this seemingly "loving"
and "tolerant" move towards Religious Pluralism.
William Norman Grigg, "Freedom on the Altar." pp. 188-189:
"The 'Declaration of a Global Ethic' presumes to dictate 'an
irrevocable, unconditional norm for all areas of life, for families and
communities, for races, nations and religions. Significantly, the word
GOD is not found anywhere in the Global Ethic document; this omission was
necessary to placate the representatives of 'non-theistic' belief systems
(such as Buddhism, Taoism, and various humanist philosophies) who attended
the Parliament (of World's Religions. 1993, Chicago, Bangalor and Japan).
The acceptance of the 'Global Ethic', according to the document, is the
sine qua non of becoming 'authentically human'. Students of 20th-century
totalitarian movements are quite familiar with the common fate of those
found to be less than 'authentically' human."
Here we might digress from the text of Grigg for a moment. Does the "authentically
human" concept remind the reader of the Lorenzen "humanum" comments in
Just one quote from him to remind ourselves: p.62.
"An authentic religious faith, then, must contribute to making
and keeping human life human. This means, that verification hinges on the
understanding of the humanum ... We can only mention the parameters for
a Christian understanding of the humanum, and what consequences this has
for measuring and verifying the truth of a religious faith."
Grigg proceeds p.188-189:
"Apparently, 'authentic' humans have little use for individual
rights. The document asserts that individual freedom cannot be allowed
except in the context of 'global responsibility': 'Self-determination and
self-realisation are thoroughly legitimate so long as they are not separated
from human self-responsibility and global responsibility, that is ...responsibility
for fellow humans and planet Earth.' (1) Apparently, we will be free to
do as we are told to do by a global government. Property rights are also
defined away: 'no one has the right to use her or his possessions without
concern for the needs of society and Earth.' (2) Schoolchildren are to
be taught that freedom to own property is limited by the needs of the 'common
good' of the global community. (3).
FOOTNOTES FROM GRIGG:
Among the Global Ethic's 'Irrevocable Directives" is a "commitment
to a culture of tolerance' which suggests that religious leaders who preach
'intolerance' (however the offence may be defined) should be punished by
the loss of their congregations: 'When [representatives of religion] stir
up prejudice, hatred, and enmity towards those of different belief, or
even incite or legitimate religious wars, they deserve the condemnation
of humankind and the loss of their adherents.' (4) While no sane and sensible
person encourages or sustains prejudice, sane and sensible people should
rebel at the thought of an entity capable of imposing the sanctions implied
by this passage."
(1) Declaration of a Global ethic. p.5.
(2) Ibid p.6.
(3) Ibid. (4) Ibid p.7.
Let us take note that Hans Kung and Leonard Swindler, quoted from so
liberally by Lorenzen, are the co-authors of the Global Ethic of the Second
Parliament of World's Religions, held August 28 - September 5, 1993. The
Declaration of a Global Ethic was distributed at Chicago, USA, at that
Parliament. Who funded the huge New Age, occult gathering? The Rockefeller
A world-wide global alliance of religions is happening right now on
the planet. This has been prophesied to occur in the Last Days. (Revelation
17). Without a shadow of doubt this emerging One World Religious alliance
is the Antichrist system. The UN's "Temple of Understanding", which was
constructed on 50 acres beside the Potomac River in the USA, Washington,
DC, is a foreshadow of the One World Church.
The major sponsors of that project included many of the top Illuminati
leaders, such as
John D. Rockefeller IV (CFR),
socialist leader Norman Thomas, and
Robert Mc Namara (CFR).
(Source: Edith Kermit Roosevelt, "Temple of Understanding" The Freedom
Press, Nov.5, 1962).
WRITES NEW AGE GLOBALIST, PLURALIST, MATTHEW FOX:
"I believe the appropriate symbol of the Cosmic Christ ... is
that of Jesus as Mother Earth crucified yet rising daily ... [T]he symbol
of which I speak holds the capacity to launch a global spirituality of
untold dimensions appropriate to the third millennium."
THE NEW PARADIGM OF THEOLOGY
("The Coming of the Cosmic Christ: The Healing of Mother Earth and
the Birth of a Global Renaissance."
pp.145,149. Pub. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1988.)
in Religious Pluralism is nothing more than the OLD LIE:
"...Yea, hath God said...", and we know who told that
lie! (Gen 3:1).
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time
past unto the fathers by the prophets,
MICHAEL GREEN, a prominent religious leader and evangelical speaker
who spoke at Billy Graham's International Conference For Itinerant Evangelists
in Amsterdam, 1983, and at the North American Congress on the Holy Spirit
and World Evangelism held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 1987, a meeting sponsored
by Charismatics and Roman Catholics, has written in his book, "The Futures
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath
appointed heir of all things,
by whom also he made the worlds..." (Heb 1:1-2).
"I have argued in The Futures of Christianity (1987) that 'the
glad acceptance of Christ as Saviour and Lord, as the One who can bring
us to the Father as no other teacher can, is entirely compatible with a
willingness to learn from other teachers. In the past Christians gladly
learned from Greek philosophers
Commented Dr. M. H. Reynolds Jr., of Fundamental Evangelical Assoc. USA,
"Such statements by Michael Green bear the unmistakable mark of satanic
deception. The early Christians did not learn from Greek philosophers and
Roman poets - once they heard and believed the Truth, they rejected their
false teachings. Any believer today who, following Green's unscriptural
advice, seeks to learn important truths from Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists,
animists and atheists, is on very dangerous ground both spiritually and
morally." (Pamphlet: "AD 2000 Ecumenical Evangelism. p.8. Los. Osos. CA.
and Roman poets. In our time Christians can be taught about community
life under God by Jews, about devotion to God by Muslims or Hindu, about
detachment from the passions by Buddhists, about the sacredness of nature
by animists, and goodness by atheists...."
* Background Note: ...(back
Dr. Thorwald Lorenzen is the Senior Pastor of the Canberra Baptist Church,
The Church Leadership called him to this position in 1995.
Lorenzen was previously a Professor of Systematic Theology at the Rushlikon
Baptist Theological College/Seminary
in Switzerland. Lorenzen trained at Morling Baptist Theological College
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
by M.H. Reynolds
In these days when the satanic philosophy of "forgetting all differences"
is so popular, we must never forget that God clearly delineates those differences
that must be understood and maintained in order to avoid certain disaster.
Only a return to the principles and practices set forth in the Scriptures
could delay the righteous judgement of God upon America and the other nations
of the world! (This includes Australia!)
Deceived religious leaders are saying, "Let's seek truth wherever it
may be found." They advocate that leaders of all religions come together
to pool the "truths" each supposedly has discovered in his own religious
"traditions." In this unscriptural effort, such deceivers are not only
bringing together professed "Christians" of all kinds - Evangelicals, Pentecostals,
Charismatics, Ecumenists, Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox - but also
non-Christian Jews and heathen religions such as Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists,
Sikhs, Jains, and traditional Indian nature worshippers and the like.
The Bible says,
"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according
to this word, it is because there is no light in them" Isaiah 8:20. Those
who believe God's Word and desire to obey It will not only refuse to participate
with those who are walking in darkness (though they claim to seek the light)
but will warn them and others about the sad consequences of their disobedience.
God says, "there is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof
are the ways of death " (Proverbs 14:12).
It is essential to recognize that there is a vast difference between an
all-Holy God and sinful man. Isaiah 6:3 says, "And one cried unto another,
and said, Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full
of his glory." Contrast this with Psalm 39:5b: "verily every man at his
best state is altogether vanity."
There is a vast difference between Christ and the devil. Jesus Christ,
rebuking the false teachers of His day said, "ye are of your father the
devil, and the lusts of your fathers ye will do. He was a murderer from
the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in
him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar,
and the father of it" (John 8:44). By contrast, Jesus said in John 14:6,
"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the father,
but by me."
There is a vast difference between the Holy Spirit and false spirits.
In John 16:13, Jesus said, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come,
he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself, but
whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things
to come." By contrast, the beloved of the Lord are instructed in 1 John
4:1, "beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they
are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." What
Today, when the devil's "mix-master" philosophy is so popular, true
believers must be especially careful to maintain the differences God has
established. With mounting pressure upon faithful believers to compromise
(supposedly in order not to hinder God's work in these last days), and
with charismatics seeking to promote new heresies (that are attractively
presented to undiscerning believers as "new winds of the Holy Spirit" but
are actually generated by false spirits), it is obvious that Satan and
his "angels of light" are working overtime to deceive and need to be exposed
and opposed in the strength of the Lord and by the power of His might.
God gives His faithful ones the following assurance: "When the enemy shall
come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against
him" Isaiah 59:19b. What a blessing! What a comfort! What an assurance!
What an encouragement!
DIFFERENCES WE MUST OBSERVE,
TO NOT DO SO IS PERILOUS!
In His Word, God establishes many other unalterable and eternal differences.
There is a difference between truth and error; right and wrong; righteousness
and sin; faith and doubt; life and death; saved and lost; believers and
unbelievers; grace and works; heavenly and earthly; spiritual and carnal;
eternal and temporal; victory and defeat; creation and evolution; angels
and demons; peace and war; joy and sorrow; rest and restlessness; simplicity
and complexity; love and hate; hope and despair; blessed and cursed; awake
and asleep; full and empty; straight and crooked; moral and immoral; justice
and injustice; knowledge and ignorance; strength and weakness; needs and
wants; near and far; bravery and belligerence; smooth and rough; generosity
and miserliness; humbleness and pride; freedom and slavery; sincerity and
hypocrisy; and fundamentalism and liberalism.
...Biblical separation is not popular; it is ridiculed and despised
by most. However, God's command is to "come out," "be separate" and "touch
not the unclean things." Only then will the Almighty be able to minister
fully to His children as our perfect heavenly Father desires to do. Separated
believers must not feel sorry for themselves but feel instead a burden
and concern for those who are obeying men rather than God. Acts 5:29.
(These timely words appeared in "FOUNDATION",
a magazine of Biblical Fundamentalism, Sep-Oct 1996. Editorial,
P.O. Box 6278, Los Osos, CA 93412, USA).
INTERNET E-MAIL ON MARTINI.
Return to Booklets
Despatch Vol. 9:1
"Jesuit priest, CARLO MARIA MARTINI (1908-)is the Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Milan.
Time magazine, December 26,1994, listed him as the best-known
candidate in line for the Papacy.
Another Time magazine article reported that Martini brought together
a syncretistic convocation of
over 100 religious leaders from around the world to promote a
new age, one-world religion.
In addressing this meeting, Mikhail Gorbachev said, We need to
syncretize a new religion for
thinking men that will universalize that religion for the world
and lead us into a new age."
Endtime Ministries...Christian Resource
Editor of Despatch W. B. Howard
Ph. 0754941672 Fac. 0754948617 Mob. 0407636611
P.O. Box 238, Landsborough.
Q. 4550. Aust.