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 presents
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."

"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 1:9-11).

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.

"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).

LORENZEN.

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).

LORENZEN. p.49:

"The future belongs to the multi-cultural and multi-religious society."

NO! The future belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ, and the meek shall inherit the earth under His rule.

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. Writes Lorenzen:

"No one can escape the fact of religious pluralism today!

It is an urgent and important matter for theological reflection."

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.

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 [1965].)
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, 1963).

WHO? WHAT?
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 wrote that

"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.'

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." (Quote ends).

Who did fund that Parliament? The Theosophical UN and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (NWO).

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,

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."

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 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

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."

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,
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.)"

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 like
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.

LORENZEN:
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"!

LORENZEN:
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 to

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."

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).

"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?

Wrote Lorenzen:

"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 Jesus Christ.

6. DOES THE BIBLE TEACH OTHER RELIGIONS
CAN FIND SALVATION OUTSIDE OF CHRIST JESUS?

Writes Lorenzen:

"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 an impossibility.
(See an example 1 John 5:11-12; 11 Cor 6:2).

7. DOES GOD MAKE A COVENANT WITH ALL PEOPLES?

Lorenzen writes:

"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)."

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!

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 bizarre interpretation.

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?

"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 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 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.

LORENZEN, p.61:

"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.

FORMAL CRITERIA

LORENZEN, p.61:

"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."

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.

LORENZEN p.61:

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."

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.

LORENZEN p.61:

"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!

CONTENT CRITERIA

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

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 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.

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 to oneself....

...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).

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" bills!

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?

NOT SO!

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."

CONCLUSION.

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 Peter Heinegg.
"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 Monica K.

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).

"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, eds.

THE UN OF RELIGIONS?

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:

Multi-culturalism,

Interfaith,

Religious Pluralism,

Ecumenism,

Dialogue,

Multi-religious society,

Consensus for a Global Ethos and

One World One Mind religion.

DECLARATION OF A GLOBAL ETHIC

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 his text?

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).

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."

FOOTNOTES FROM GRIGG:
(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 Brothers!

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
in Religious Pluralism is nothing more than the OLD LIE:
"...Yea, hath God said...", and we know who told that lie! (Gen 3:1).

THE TRUTH

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

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..."

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 of Christianity":

"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

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...."

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. USA)

* Background Note: ...(back to top)

Dr. Thorwald Lorenzen is the Senior Pastor of the Canberra Baptist Church, ACT.
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 in Sydney.

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 "

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 a difference!

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, pp. 2-4. P.O. Box 6278, Los Osos, CA 93412, USA).

INTERNET E-MAIL ON MARTINI.

"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."

. Return to Booklets

. Return to Despatch Vol. 9:1

Click Here
Endtime Ministries...Christian Resource Centre Editor of Despatch W. B. Howard Ph. 0754941672 Fac. 0754948617 Mob. 0407636611 P.O. Box 238, Landsborough. Q. 4550. Aust.

despatch@mail.cth.com.au http://www.despatch.cth.com.au