Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.
Filed under: Quotes | Tagged: Quotes | No Comments »
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Filed under: Quotes | Tagged: Quotes | No Comments »
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Filed under: Quotes | Tagged: Quotes | No Comments »
Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?
Filed under: Quotes | Tagged: Quotes | No Comments »
Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
Filed under: Quotes | Tagged: Quotes | No Comments »
All I am, or can be, I owe to my angel mother.
Filed under: Quotes | Tagged: Mother's Day, Quotes | 1 Comment »
Reaching the Catholic with the Gospel
By Richard Bennett
Introduction
I had great difficulties as a Catholic priest in listening to evangelists in my fourteen years of searching for the true Gospel. Christian radio programs continually told me the amount of things I had to do to “accept Jesus into my heart.” Christian tracts likewise told me the amount of dedication or commitment I needed in order to make a “decision for Christ.” After an agonizing search in the face of being told what I must do to be saved, I discovered that the first thing that must be understood biblically about the Gospel is that it is “concerning Jesus Christ our Lord,” in the words of Paul in Romans 1:3. While the Gospel is proclaimed to all, it is “not” about Christ being accepted into our hearts, it is centered on the Jesus Christ the Lord, His faithfulness, His death and resurrection, and “our being found acceptable in Him” by His grace.
The Apostle Paul loudly proclaimed the Gospel as the righteousness of God manifested! He declared, “but now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.” The righteousness of God is that perfect faithfulness to the law of God in heart and life, which the holiness of God requires. This, the Apostle enthusiastically announces, is now established—for Christ’s faithfulness (to keeping the law) is revealed! Before God’s all holy nature, sin had to be punished and true righteousness established. This has been accomplished in the faithful obedience of the Lord Christ Jesus to live perfectly under the law, which includes His perfect sacrifice on the cross. The Apostle continues, “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe.” The great news is that this absolute faithfulness of Christ Jesus under the Law now rests upon the believer. He actually possesses it, wearing it as a robe, in the words of the Prophet Isaiah, “I will greatly rejoice in the LORD…for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness.” Romans 3:21-22 is showing in legal terms how exactly the true believer is identified with the Lord Jesus Christ. God has provided Christ’s righteousness to sinners who believe. Thus, when one understands that the faithfulness of Christ is vicariously applied to the sinner by a one time gracious act of God alone, he realizes that Christ satisfied the law on his behalf. The Scriptures teach that Christ was, in a strict and exact sense, the representative Substitute for His people. By divine appointment and of His own free will, Christ assumed all His peoples’ liabilities and bestowed on them all of His perfection. In the wonderful words of the Apostle John, “And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. ”
How Not to Evangelize
The greatest obstacle to the Gospel is silence. By remaining silent and hoping that our Christian life will testify for itself we fail to keep the Lord’s commandment. The commandment, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature,” means to go and speak the Word also to the Catholic! The majority of Nuns and Priests and former Catholics that I know who have been saved out of Catholicism all testify to the fact that no Bible believer ever approached them about their salvation. Christ’s commandment to give the good news is a commandment, not a request!
In evangelizing a Catholic, one must be absolutely aware not to give any “process message.” This means telling him “what he must do.” The Catholic has been continually told how to do things to be pleasing to God. The first Fridays, first Saturdays, the Blue Scapular, “The little way of St Teresa,” likewise, the apparitions are filled with messages on what to do; the Catholic’s life is full of what to do. When one approaches a Catholic, it must be regarding what Christ has done, and the simple commandment to trust and believe. Using expressions such as “Accept Jesus into your heart” and “Give your life to Christ” are quite similar to what the Roman Catholics hear inside Catholicism, sometimes the exact words. These messages must be completely left aside if one is to truly evangelize. It is necessary therefore that we discuss some of the wrong ways of evangelizing that are absolutely detrimental to the true Gospel.
“Accept Jesus into your heart (to be saved).” is one of the most used sentences in modern Evangelical circles. This humanistic concept is not biblical. (It puts man in control of his salvation, when all along salvation is “entirely” the work of God. Salvation is not a decision of man; it is a decision of God in the eternal council of the Godhead.) The biblical concept of salvation is that by grace the believer is accepted in Christ. We do not accept Him, He accepts us. The whole theme of Ephesians Chapter 1 is summarized in verse 6, “To the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the Beloved.” He is active; we are passive, i.e., He is the Potter; we are the clay. The terminology, “accept Jesus into your heart” is backwards and dishonest. It assumes wrongly that salvation (originates, starts) in the human heart. Consistently in Scripture, salvation is shown to be in Christ and in Him alone. It is not about man and what he should do, it is about Him and what He has already done. “Accepting Jesus” places emphasis on something that man needs to do. When properly reasoned out one sees that this is work’s salvation, but believing or trusting Him for what He has done is “through faith” salvation. In Him alone is that perfect righteousness that is sufficient before the Holy God to justify unholy sinners.
It is unscriptural to think that salvation begins by Christ first coming into the sinful heart of a man. It is essential to understand that natural man is totally deficient in and of himself. It is not that he is merely weak and needs stimulation; spiritually he is dead. In the words of the Apostle, “And you hath He quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” The spiritually dead and ungodly person can be made acceptable to God only as he is “in Christ,” as all the teachings of the Apostles Paul, John and Peter testify. Then, and only then, does Christ come into the human heart to sanctify the one already saved. Christ does come into our hearts as believers, thus, His Word says, “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.” This is the whole process of sanctification in us that is not to be confused with initial salvation that is to be found in Him.
The verses below are often wrongly used to evangelize. Rather, these words are addressed to believers in the Church of the Laodiceans, “and unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write… ‘Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne….’” This misuse of Revelation 3:20-21, a sanctification message, not meant to teach justification, is inexcusable. Sanctification differs from justification. Sanctification is internal and experimental, while justification is objective and legal. Sanctification is gradual and progressive (mutable) whereas justification is instantaneous and immutable. Many who misuse this passage know better, yet for the sake of what they call success in witnessing they persist. Since this abuse of Scripture is so serious and soul damning its important to give examples. Very often one hears the following,
“Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.”(Revelation 3:20) Jesus Christ wants to have a personal relationship with you. Picture, if you will, Jesus Christ standing at the door of your heart (the door of your emotions, intellect and will). Invite Him in; He is waiting for you to receive Him into your heart and life.”
The Lord Christ Jesus does not stand waiting to come into any sinful man’s heart, He commands all men everywhere to believe in Him. Faith in Christ alone saves, not faith in some inner process that has been subtly given in its place. The sanctification text, Revelation 3:20, spoken by the Lord to those in the Church, is totally misused. (It is no wonder that some ministries that use this message also endorse “Conversion as a process” as in Evangelicals and Catholics Together: (ECT 1) and other similar false Ecumenical documents). Many are deceived upon this vital matter, sincerely believing that they have received Christ as their personal Savior while in fact they have believed in a ritual.
Catholics can be deceived upon this vital matter, i.e., sincerely believing that they have received Jesus into their hearts. These people still remain in the Roman Catholic Church believing themselves now to have done the Evangelical thing to add to their many rituals in Catholicism. It is unspeakably serious to give a deceiving salvation message.
“Give Jesus control of your life (to be saved)” is another well known unbiblical approach (to evangelism). It is also man centered and involves work’s salvation. This teaching is in error because the Sovereign God of the universe controls His creation. He is the One “ In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” Then there is nothing any person might think of to give God in exchange for salvation. In the words of the Apostle, “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us….” Christ Jesus Himself was the only sacrifice for sin acceptable to the Holy God, and that sin offering was accomplished completely at the cross. The sacrifice for sin is finished. A person is made right with God by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by a promise (or commitment) of “controlled behavior”. Controlled behavior is a process following salvation rather than the initiating cause of salvation.
“Give your life to Jesus (to be saved.)” This teaching is in error for several reasons. First it is the exact opposite that is true. “Our Lord Jesus Christ…gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father.” There is no Bible verse that says or teaches that a lost, spiritually dead person “gives” anything, not even his life, in order to be saved. Again, this humanistic concept is not biblical. Eternal life is a free gift from God. “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” A person does not “give” anything for a free gift. The Lord God Almighty gives the free gift of eternal life. In the words of the Apostle John, “And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.”
Such a phrase as “Give your life to Jesus” wrongly presumes that a person has something worthy to give God. Because man is spiritually dead in sin he cannot give anything that will save him from his sins. (You cannot give what you do not control. Man, rather, is under the control of sin. And why would God want to receive a sinful man or a sinful man’s offering? Note the requirement on God’s priests in the Old Testament when they were ready to offer a sacrifice. A bloody sacrifice had to be offered for all their sins “before” they could approach a Holy God. This sacrifice was a picture of the bloody sacrifice of the Savior in atoning for sins. It is no different today. Therefore, a sinful man cannot “give” his sin-controlled life to God. He must first be reconciled to God by “trusting” fully in Christ’s atoning work on the Cross.) If the Catholic is taught to “give his life to Jesus” to be saved, he may think that he has to give his service, time, works, money, etc. and then he will be right with God. This can lead the lost person into a works Gospelthat which can never save. A person is made right with God’s grace alone through faith alone in Christ aloneand nothing else. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.”
These are some of the humanistic ways in which modern Evangelicals give a so-called evangelistic gospel. The examples given here are to illustrate the departure from the true Gospel, which is taking place in the modern world, and to alert the Lord’s people to give the true message.
Presenting the Gospel the way the Bible does
First, all men are commanded to believe on the Lord Jesus. The Lord put the command to believe in a nutshell when He said, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent.” Likewise the Apostle Paul and Silas declared, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” The central importance of faith was given by the Lord in the words, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” In a word, the Lord summarizes the situation, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” The Lord Jesus Christ states clearly the reason for this, “He that believeth on Him [Christ] is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”
Having seen the command to believe, we must then realize that without God’s grace, no person can believe. The highest expression of the loving kindness of God is grace. The term denotes the very nature of the graciousness of God. Therefore, the Scriptures insist, “That in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.” Salvation does not proceed from anything in the one witnessed to, but rather it issues forth from the kindness and mercy of God.
The Biblical tension between these two pointsthat every person is commanded to believe, but without God’s grace, a person cannot believemust be clearly evident in our witnessing to Catholics. This tension is expressed in some Scripture texts, for example, John 1:12-13, “But as many as received Him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name: which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Both aspects are also given in the preaching of the Apostle Paul, “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins, and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” Likewise, the Apostle Peter teaches that true saving faith by which we believe is acquired through God, “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ.” The design of the Lord in these and other verses is to show that a person must “believe on Jesus Christ” for salvation, yet to do so he needs grace. In witnessing, we (should) show a person that to believe he must look to the Lord for (His) grace. All those that come to rest in faith on Christ Jesus are not only convinced of the evil of sin, but of the fact that the very power to believe is His gift. This is a crucial understanding in the statement, “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, ‘If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.’” A man must deny his worthless works, his egocentric efforts, his rancid righteousness, his rejected religion, and believe only in what God has done through Christ. The graciousness of the gift is highlighted by the Apostle Paul, “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Grace is a free, undeserved gift, unmerited, and stands opposed to what is obtained by one’s own efforts or as a matter of claim.
Repentance
Believing on Christ, trusting on Him, or coming to Him, has an essentially difficult side that is often not mentioned in present day tracts and witnessing. In the Bible, however, this essential aspect of faith is often first. The Lord Jesus Christ’s message is, “…repent ye, and believe the gospel.” He came to “call sinners to repentance,” and He insisted that, “…except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” The risen Lord teaches in His word, “…that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations.” The Apostle Peter proclaimed, “Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out!” Paul preached, “…repent and turn to God and do works meet for repentance,” “…testifying to both Jews and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Repentance is so essential to saving faith that if repentance is missing a person does not have saving faith. Conviction of sin is the first work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the lost. Conviction is the confirming belief that what God’s Spirit shows man about his sins is true and he deserves to be punished for them. If God is drawing that man to Himself that conviction will force him to seek God’s forgiveness, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” Without conviction of sin, a person does not have salvation. The Scripture says, “…He shall save His people from their sins.” Repentance is always part of trusting on Christ because Christ came not to save a person in his sins but from his sins. “[God] now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.”
For religious and devout Catholics the most difficult sin to repent of is that of trusting that their religion gives salvation. The Lord’s strong word to the Pharisees, who likewise trusted in their religion, is most appropriate in this regard, “if you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sins.” Since Catholics believe that their Church has all the resources of salvation they likewise, in practice, are denying His Person. To such religious Catholics the effective word of repentance can be, “If you remain in your traditions you will die in your sins. Trust on Christ and Him alone, not in any Church, and know eternal life that He alone gives”
The Biblical Method
Biblical methodology is an important part of the Lord’s truth. The Lord’s own method of evangelising was essentially by asking questions, and by proclaiming the need to repent and believe as we have seen. The biblical method is to ask questions, as did the Lord Himself.
Some sample questions in witnessing
1. How can we sinners stand before the All Holy God?
2. What is your purpose in life? Then following their response, Before the All Holy God what is your purpose?
3. What is the central message of the Bible?
4. How can you and I have eternal life?
5. Why did the sinless Christ die on the cross?
6. God is all holy; we are all sinners. How can anyone have a relationship with Him?
7. Why did Christ say to Pharisees, “If you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”? (John 8:24)
8. Have you read your Bible today?
Salvation is in Christ Jesus
In the Scriptures, salvation is seen clearly to be “in” Christ. For example, in Ephesians, chapters one and two, such phrases as in Christ, in Whom, in Him, in the Beloved, are spoken of 18 times. This is the same in all of the letters of Paul, the Apostle; salvation is always expressed as being in Christ. For example, the Apostle Paul’s own testimony said, “…that I may win Christ and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.” In a similar way in the Apostle John’s writing, eternal life is in Christ and it is by believing on Him. “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life” Believing in Jesus Christ is the same as having eternal life, i.e., Jesus Christ is eternal life.)
The commandment in Scripture is to, “believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved” or in the words of Jesus Himself, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved”. Salvation being in Christ and not in the believer is of utmost importance when witnessing to a Catholic. Any terminology in witnessing that focuses on the human heart rather than on Christ is not effective because it is not in line with the written Word. (It causes sinful man to focus upon himself rather than the One who can deliver him from sin.) The biblical principle of salvation is that of believing on Christ Jesus the Lord alone!
Coming to Christ is initiated by the Father who draws each individual to Christ. Salvation is accomplished by God’s grace alone. It is His free gift through faith alone. Coming to Christ (trusting in Him) is having eternal life now, and the life of the redeemed will be fully glorified in heaven. In witnessing, talking about “getting to heaven” not only changes the focus from who God is to man’s fulfillment, but it also fails to make clear that through the precious faith that is ours now as believers, we already have eternal life. Rather than talking about getting to heaven, we should say to the lost, “and this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent.” The actual words of Scripture should be proclaimed to Catholics, whether in the supermarket, at the hairdresser, or on the telephone; “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”
The Apostle Paul’s summary of the Gospel is an example of the exact meaning of salvation. “For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” Christ Jesus was not “made sin for us” by the infusion of vice or sin, nor is the believer “made righteous” by the infusion of holiness. The Lord Jesus was personally All Holy; yet as the substitute for the believer’s sin, He rendered Himself legally responsible to the wrath of God. The purpose of Christ’s faithfulness in all that He did, culminating in His death on the cross, was that His righteousness might be credited to the believer. God legally constituted Christ to be “sin for us.” In this sense, He was “made sin” because the sins of all of His people were transferred to Him. In like manner, God reckons to the believer Christ’s righteousness. Quite clearly, salvation is a judicial and gracious act of God whereby a believing sinner has legal right standing in Christ Jesus.
When full credit is given to God and His grace and when His powerful written Word is used in witnessing, He saves the sinner and gives a manifestation of His power, love, and mercy. All is as proclaimed by the Apostle, “to the praise of the glory of His grace.”
Richard Bennett of “Berean Beacon” WebPage: http://www.bereanbeacon.org
Permission is given by the author to copy this article if it is done in its entirety without any changes.
Permission is also given post this article in its entirety on Internet WebPages.
Filed under: Catholicism | Tagged: Catholicism | 1 Comment »
| Home | Get Involved | Donate | Chapter Information | Contact Congress | Issues and Legislation | News |
It may at first appear absurdly humorous that banks in England stopped making piggy banks available to customers, out of fear of offending Muslims.
But this is no laughing matter, as the story below reveals.
By Janet Levy
FrontPageMagazine.com | 5/2/2008
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=B4D7EA5D-074C-4D34-AB04-71E9354504CB
The practice of political correctness may soon be tallying another casualty: the pig. Increasingly, as America and the rest of the Western world continue accommodating Muslim religious demands, pork food products are being singled out for removal from dining tables and pig-related trinkets banished from the desks of office workers.
If this continues, good ol’ American food, such as barbeque replete with hot dogs and ribs and the typical American breakfast of eggs, bacon and sausage, might be seen as the equivalent of political poison. Could outright censorship of pig depictions in drawings, pig references in literary works and pig portrayals in movies be far behind? Could the well-known, cartoon figure Porky Pig become a cultural embarrassment of our unenlightened past as we fear to utter the “P” word?
Though the notion may seem more appropriate for a comedy routine, an increasing number of pig-related incidents, accommodations and Muslim demands in recent years points to an uncertain future for our porcine friend and its place in our economy, culture and our culinary traditions.
In October of 2005, the United Kingdom, clearly further along on the road to dhimmitude due to its proportionally large and more radical Muslim population, banned piggybanks as promotional gifts from its banks. At about the same time, government social welfare offices called for the removal of all pig paraphernalia, including pig calendars, toys and accessories from employee desks. These new regulations were ostensibly implemented so as not to offend Muslim patrons.
Meanwhile, in the United States in 2007, several school districts removed pork products from their cafeteria offerings. Dearborn, Mich., schools banned pork completely to avoid the possibility that Muslims students might unknowingly eat it. The district later added special halal foods to its menu to cater to the demands of its Muslim population. An elementary school in San Diego that offers Arabic, single-gender classes and Muslim-only organized prayer, no longer offers pork to any of its students. And in Oak Lawn, Ill., where the administration is debating elimination of Christmas holiday celebrations, pork has already been banished from the school lunchroom.
Orthodox Jews, who follow kosher laws that prohibit the consumption of pork, have never demanded such special considerations for their chosen dietary habits nor have Jews feared accidental pork ingestion. They privately moderate their consumption according to their religious observances and often consume food prepared at home according to prescribed regulations.
Contrast this to how Muslims and their dietary habits are treated. In April 2007, a 13-year-old middle school prankster was suspended and his behavior labeled a hate crime for placing a bag with a ham steak on the lunch table of a group of Muslim students. That same month, Muslims started a Facebook group, “Fight Against Pork in Frito-Lay Products.” The more than 1,800 participants sought to pressure the company to remove pork enzymes from its cheese seasonings.
Last year, Somali Muslim employees at a St. Louis Park, Minn. Target store refused to handle pork products, citing religious reasons. Target made special allowances for Muslim employees, who now scrutinize customer purchases and can call for assistance when a pork product appears at their check stand. Presumably, the Muslim employees knew they would be encountering bacon and pepperoni pizza when they signed on for their jobs and have no problem collecting a salary paid out of profits from pork sales.
In 2007, the Year of the Pig, an imam in Taipei complained after receiving a greeting card from Taiwan’s foreign minister depicting celebrating pigs. When “Year of the Pig” postal stamps were issued, the Taiwanese government cautioned citizens about using them on letters and parcels to Muslim friends or to Muslim countries. That year, China banned pig images and the mention of pigs in television advertisement to avoid offending the country’s Muslims.
This year, the popular story, The Three Little Pigs, was banned in a primary school in the United Kingdom as the school’s administration thought references to pigs might offend Muslim pupils. Another school removed all books containing stories about pigs, including the talking pig ‘Babe’ from classrooms following complaints from Muslim parents. In 2007, a UK church school production of The Three Little Pigs was renamed The Three Little Puppies to maintain multi-cultural sensitivities. Ironically, the pig is mentioned often in the Koran as a derogatory reference to Jews.
In further accommodation to Muslims, Fortis Bank in the Netherlands and Belgium dropped its pig mascot. Knorbert the pig was eliminated after seven years with a statement from a bank spokesperson that “Knorbert does not meet the requirements that the multicultural society imposes on us.”
A recent BBC report described how pork butchers are gradually being put out of business as Turkey adopts a more fundamentalist Muslim character. Pork slaughterhouses are being closed in record numbers to accommodate shariah law countrywide.
In 2004, a Muslim-owned investment company, Arcapita (formerly Capital Crescent Investments) acquired the 1,200-unit Church’s Chicken chain. In 2005, Arcapita, with a net income of $70.5 million and assets worth $1.2 billion (2004), enjoined a franchisee from selling pork products. In correspondence with the franchisee, the corporate owners cited violation of shariah law as the reason for prohibiting the sale of bacon, ham and sausages. The restaurant owners were thereby forced to surrender to corporate demands and operate under shariah law.
Where will this end? Will “Animal Farm” be banned at our high schools and university campuses? Will the words “pork barrel spending” and “porker” be eliminated from the vernacular? Will Piggly Wiggly supermarkets be forced to change its name and re-brand its products? This could all be quite amusing if the implications weren’t so grave.
The pig is an icon of American culture, a culinary tradition and an important component of our economy. While high grain prices and competition from Chinese imports are recognized as the two greatest threats to the industry, hog producers could be overlooking a larger threat to their livelihood looming on the horizon.
Pork production is a vital part of the U.S. economy, producing more than 22 billion pounds of meat annually, contributing almost $40 billion to the GNP and employing more than 500,000 workers in pork-industry related jobs. In addition, important pork co-products include heart valves, skin grafts for burn victims, gelatin, plywood, glue, cosmetics and plastics. At 28% of total world production, the U.S. is the second largest pork producer after China, which produces close to 50% of the world total. Pork ranks third in U.S. meat production behind beef and chicken and average yearly per capita consumption is about 50 pounds.
If the momentum to alter America’s dining habits and cultural traditions to suit Muslim religious habits continues, American liberty, freedom and culture could actually be threatened. Laughable though it may seem on the surface, Arab petrodollar profits have the heft to use an economic, backdoor approach to implement shariah law in the United States against the will of the public. As Arab Muslims continue to heavily invest in our economy, they will continue to force submission to shariah law and undermine our democracy, individual rights and religious freedom. We must be vigilant and aware of this threat and act against it vigorously and immediately.
——————————————————————————————-
Filed under: Islam | Tagged: Islam | 1 Comment »
05/05/2008
If I Were President
by Chuck Baldwin
Constitution Party 2008 Presidential Candidate Due to my frequent criticisms of President George W. Bush, I am often asked what I would do if I were President of these United States. This column will serve as an attempt to answer that question. If I were President, I would begin the process of safely extracting our troops from Iraq. In the first place, our troops are no longer fighting a war, they are an occupation force, which occupies a sovereign country. And this is being done without a Declaration of War. The Iraqi people resent our occupation as much as we would resent another nation stronger than ours invading and occupying America. If such a thing happened to our beloved country, I’m sure many of us would also become “insurgents.”
In the second place, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was absolutely unnecessary. Instead of sacrificing more than 4,000 American lives and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens (not to mention some 2-3 trillion dollars), President Bush should have supported Ron Paul’s bill, H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. This is the constitutional way to deal with rogue terrorist organizations. This is the way President Thomas Jefferson responded to the Barbary pirates.
According to Congressman Paul, “A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the President the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.”
Had President Bush responded in this manner, tens of thousands of lives would have been saved, trillions of dollars would not have needed to be spent, Osama bin Laden and most of his fellow terrorists would likely be dead, and we would not be bogged down in a nightmarish military quagmire in Iraq. And, if I were President, this is exactly how I would handle terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda.
Furthermore, it is absolutely ludicrous to say we are fighting a war on terror half way around the world when we refuse to secure our borders and ports. If I were President, I would immediately seal our borders. I would also see to it that employers in America who knowingly hire illegal aliens are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In plain language: any employer who consciously hires illegal aliens would go to jail. They would not pass Go; they would not collect $200; they would go straight to jail.
By sealing the borders and by cutting off the money supply to illegal aliens, the problem of illegal immigration would dry up. As it is, we have no idea how many potential terrorists–not to mention violent gang members such as MS-13–have snuck (and are sneaking) through our borders.
And speaking of illegal immigration, as President, I would enforce our visa rules. This means anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law is immediately deported. There would be no “path to citizenship” given to any illegal alien. That means no amnesty. Not in any shape, manner, or form. I would not allow tax dollars to be used to pay for illegal aliens’ education, social services, or medical care. As President, I would end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. There would be no “anchor babies” during my administration.
If I were President, I would use the bully pulpit of the White House to encourage Congress to pass Congressman Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act. In short, this bill would do two things: First, it would declare that unborn babies are persons under the law. Second, under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court. In essence, this bill would immediately overturn Roe v. Wade and end legalized abortion.
Republicans tout themselves as being “pro-life.” Yet, the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House for six years and did absolutely nothing to overturn Roe or end abortion-on-demand. Under my administration, we could end legal abortion in a matter of days, not decades. And if Congress refused to pass Dr. Paul’s bill, I would use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics. Either way, legalized abortion ends when I take office.
On the subject of foreign policy, as President, I would end foreign aid. I would also end the current infatuation with nation-building, empire-building, and interventionism. America is not the world’s policeman. Neither are our military personnel the personal militia of the United Nations.
Remember that President Bush told the U.N. in 2003 that the reason we invaded Iraq was for the purpose of securing the “peace and credibility of the United Nations.” (I lie not; that is what he said.) President Bush also placed the U.S. back under UNESCO in spite of the fact that President Reagan had heroically taken the U.S. out from under that sinister organization.
I am sure that readers recall that the U.N. Charter was authored by a Soviet communist agent (Alger Hiss) and that the U.S. has been fighting wars for the U.N. ever since the organization was created back in 1945.
Speaking of the United Nations, as President, I would withhold funds from the support of the United Nations. In other words, I would get the U.S. out of the U.N. Beyond that, when I move into the White House, the U.N.’s rent is up! They move out of New York City post haste.
By the same token, there is absolutely no reason for us to be in NATO. We should not be antagonizing Russia by attempting to expand NATO. There is no reason why Russia could not become a friend and ally of the United States. Free and fair trade with Russia and a noninterventionist foreign policy in Europe would do much to endear American interests to Russia. To insist on expanding and empowering NATO only serves to further alienate Russia and drive her to make alliances with Communist China.
Speaking of China, it is time that we recognize the very serious threat that China poses to the peace and security of the United States. Our trade practices serve only to allow corporate America to continue to invest in what will surely become an albatross around the neck of our well-being. We must discontinue the practice of allowing China to export its cheap products to the U.S. with no protection for America’s jobs and manufacturing, not to mention the lack of protection for our safety. This must stop, and it will stop when I become President. “Free trade” will no longer mean a free ride for Red China.
Furthermore, as President, I would take the preservation of our nation’s sovereignty and independence extremely seriously. This means that the burgeoning North American Union is dead on arrival the day I am sworn in as President. Gone, too, is the NAFTA superhighway. And for that matter, I would lead the United States out of NAFTA and CAFTA altogether. And any prospect for the FTAA would be dead as well.
As President, I would be the best friend that gun owners (and lawful gun dealers), homeschoolers, and veterans ever had in the White House. These are three of the most persecuted, harassed, or overlooked groups of people in the country. But not if I were President.
There is no reason why our veterans should wait for weeks and months to receive the medical care they need. It is disgraceful that we would ask our brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces to fight our country’s battles and then leave them to pretty much fend for themselves when it comes to receiving adequate health care. I would make taking care of our veterans an extremely high priority, if I were President.
If I were President, I would also do everything in my power to locate and retrieve any and all MIAs. I personally believe that there are hundreds of our servicemen who are yet being held against their will in various parts of the world. I would make finding them and bringing them home of utmost priority, if I were President.
On the home front, if I were President, I would end corporate welfare. I would also work to disband the Department of Energy (along with the Department of Education and many other federal departments). There is absolutely no reason for us to be dependent upon OPEC. There is enough gas and oil under the soil of Alaska (not to mention the Dakotas and the Gulf of Mexico) to meet the energy needs of the United States for the next 150-200 years. There is also no reason that gas should cost more than $1.50 a gallon (which is about what it was before Bush became President).
We must begin drilling for the domestic oil that we know exists; we must build more refineries and nuclear power plants. There is no reason why the United States cannot be mostly energy independent. It is time we started putting the people and interests of the United States ahead of the CEOs and interests of international corporations.
Lastly, if I were President, I would work feverishly to overturn the Sixteenth Amendment, which would repeal the Income Tax. And, no, I would not promote a national sales tax. That would be disastrous! Can you imagine what a 30% sales tax would do to the cost of EVERYTHING? Plus, give politicians a national sales tax to increase and just imagine what kind of percent that would grow into!
I would also work to repeal the “death tax,” inheritance taxes, and property taxes. The American people are already paying somewhere between 30% and 40% of their income to Uncle Sam. It must stop. We are bankrupting our country with this incessant and burdensome tax system. In addition, I would work to expunge the Federal Reserve and to restore the American economy to sound money.
Now, I hear people say, That’s easy for you to say; you are not a candidate for President. Ah, but now I am.
Last week, in its national nominating convention in Kansas City, Missouri, the Constitution Party nominated me as its 2008 Presidential candidate. Party delegates nominated me over Ambassador Alan Keyes by a margin of 74% to 24%. Therefore, I am now a candidate for President of these United States.
See the CP website at a href=”http://www.constitutionparty.com”>ConstitutionParty.com
My Vice Presidential running mate is Darrell Castle, an attorney and Vietnam War Marine Corps veteran from Memphis, Tennessee.
Our web site is not online yet, but will be soon. We will be able to receive credit card donations when the web page is uploaded. The address of my campaign web site is: Baldwin2008.com
In the meantime, if anyone wants to support our campaign, checks may be written to:
Baldwin 2008
I believe it is only fair, as I continue to write these columns, that one understands the full disclosure of my candidacy.
As readers know, I enthusiastically supported Ron Paul during the Republican Primary season. I plan to continue to trumpet his call for limited government, non-interventionism abroad, constitutional government, and freedom into the general election as a Third Party candidate.
I do not expect the national media to pay us much heed; they seldom do. I do not expect to receive large donations from corporate America. I do expect criticism and ridicule. That is nothing new. However, I also anticipate tens of thousands of freedom-loving people from all religious persuasions and walks of life to rally to our cause. Why? Because thousands of principled people will not be bullied into voting for the “evil of two lessers” being shoved down our throats by the two major parties. Because this campaign is not about Chuck Baldwin. It is not about a political party. It is about freedom. It is about constitutional government. It is about restoring America to the founding principles bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers. If you believe in those principles, join us!
In the meantime, these columns will continue to serve as a voice for America’s founding principles, as they have for the past eight-plus years. In addition, unlike the candidates from the two major parties, the taxpayers are not underwriting my campaign, and I will continue my day job. (Imagine that: a Presidential candidate who actually works for a living!) And all of this is just in time for my 56th birthday, which is tomorrow, May 3.
There you have it: this is what I would do if I were President of these wonderful United States of America.
Filed under: Abortion, Constitution Party, Presidency | Tagged: Abortion, Baldwin, Constitution Party, Presidency, Pro-Life | No Comments »
Dear catholic friend - I pray you will read Richard Bennett’s piece below. There is solid historical evidence to support his words. Mr. Bennett was a priest for many years and has authority and insight in this matter. It would be to your benefit to read this - you will see that the church history you are fed by the catholic church is quite different to the real truth. Kate
Dear Friend,
The Pope’s visit to the U.S.A., April 15–20, placed him in the limelight of his so-called apostolic succession from Peter. It is actually required in the Catholic Church that one believes in an historical continuity between the early Church and the Church of Rome. Most Catholics presume that this is an historical fact. Regrettably, many Bible believers have not really analyzed the question. Our article, which studies the authentic early Church, is one of the most important articles that we have written. We depend on the conviction that truth is derived from God alone and on His strength alone. We trust that He will use this article to pull down the strongholds of man-devised apostolic succession, and the Papal re-writing and amending of early Church history to shore up this dogma. “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.” The article called, “History of the Early Church Invalidates Papal Claim of Apostolic Succession,” is below.
We ask that you respond by carefully studying the article and through your much needed prayers. We would greatly appreciate it if you would forward the article to others. We request also, if possible, that you post it on your Web page.
Trusting in the Lord’s grace and mighty power,
Richard Bennett
History of the Early Church Invalidates
Papal Claim of Apostolic Succession
From April 15-20, 2008 Benedict XVI visited the US and the UN as the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and first representative of the Holy See. Thus the President welcomed him with the words, “This is your first trip to the United States since you ascended to the Chair of Saint Peter.”[1] Both Benedict’s title and his chair are granted by the dogma of apostolic succession.
In fact it is required in the Catholic Church that one believes in an historical continuity between the early Church and the Roman Catholic Church as defined by the papal dogma of apostolic succession.[2] Catholics are taught not to question this dogma. Based on it, the present Pope has flatly stated that “Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century cannot be called ‘Churches’ in the proper sense…[they] do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the church.”[3] He is not speaking in a vacuum, but rather in a time when many people are being seduced through dialogue and other methods into the Roman Catholic Church. For example, the American President said to him, “Most of all, Holy Father, you will find in America people whose hearts are open to your message of hope. And America and the world need this message.” [4] The Pope’s message was consistently vacuous, totally without the Gospel of grace, stooping even to pray for the dead at Ground Zero. His words were, “O God of love, compassion, and healing, look on us, people of many different faiths and traditions, who gather today at this site, the scene of incredible violence and pain. We ask you in your goodness to give eternal light and peace to all who died here…”[5]
These words, based in anti-biblical doctrine as they are, come from a man who claims to be head of the true church of Jesus Christ. His actions, too, in performing the Mass, which is heretical, are perfectly consistent with his position against the Reformation flowering of the true churches in the sixteenth century, whose biblical heritage is undeniable. Therefore in this presentation we want to document the New Testament concept of church and give historical data showing that the biblical concept of church was indeed lived in the times after the Apostles and prior to the Reformation.
Biblical concept of church
Jesus Christ founded His church on the Gospel message that He is “the Christ” (Anointed-Messiah) and “the Son of the Living God.”[6] After the Lord’s glorification, the Holy Spirit empowered all the believers that were assembled at Jerusalem to take the Gospel throughout the world. According to the New Testament, the first church to be established was the church in Jerusalem. It was from there that the believers went forth with the Gospel. They were the “church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.”[7] The New Testament also records the establishment of the local churches in Judea and Samaria. The Gospel then spread to cities in Cypress and to Antioch. When the believers in Jerusalem heard that people in Antioch had received the Gospel, they sent Barnabas to Antioch. Barnabas went to Tarsus to fetch Paul. Together they spent a whole year at the Antioch teaching the Gospel of grace though faith alone in Christ Jesus. It was there that those who believed the Gospel were first called Christians. The Apostle Paul appointed elders[8] and deacons in these local churches. These offices, however, are not the very essence of the church; rather they function for teaching and administration so that the assembly is orderly. The unifying center of the assembly of believers is not the structure of the group, as the Pope maintains, but rather it is the Gospel.
The Greek word “ekklesia” literally means “the called out ones”. In the New Testament it is applied to the whole company of believers throughout the present era, of whom Christ said, “I will build my Church.”[9] The Apostle Paul’s definition under the direction of the Holy Spirit is that the church is Christ’s body.[10] Most regularly the word signifies the local assembly of believers. The central feature of the New Testament letters is the Gospel of grace through faith alone, as for example in the letter to the believers at Ephesus, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”[11] The expression “the church of God”, as when the Apostle wrote, “give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God”[12] was collective, meaning the believers as distinguished from the Jews and Gentiles. The ordinary believers are continually called the “church” as the Apostle addressed them, “unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus.”[13] “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans.”[14] The church was simply the community of believers. The messages given by the Lord through the Apostle John were also all to local churches.[15]
The unifying factor that designated early local churches was the Gospel. These local churches believed and taught the Gospel of God’s grace. That Gospel was for them “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.”[16] Faith alone, consistent with the Scriptures, was the means by which the believers entered into the salvation purchased by the perfect life and sacrifice of Christ Jesus. Across Europe and Asia, local churches were established as ordinary believers spread the Gospel.
The Roman Catholic concept of church
The Vatican requires that Catholics profess that there is an historical continuity between the church founded by the Lord Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church. To assess the validity of the Catholic belief, it needs to be held firmly in mind that the Roman Catholic Church means something quite different by the word “Church” than the New Testament does. While the teaching Magisterium does mention the Church as “the People of God”, “the Body of Christ,” and “the Temple of the Holy Spirit,” the emphasis is always on the authority and mission of the papal organizational system. Thus Rome teaches, “He [Christ] instituted the Church. He gave her authority and mission, orientation and goal:..”.[17] How this claimed power structure is exercised is clearly laid out by the Roman Catholic system: “There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive.”[18] “Priests have received from God a power that he has given neither to angels nor to archangels….God above confirms what priests do here below.”[19] “‘Believing’ is an ecclesial act. The Church’s faith precedes, engenders, supports and nourishes our faith. The Church is the mother of all believers. ‘No one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as Mother.’”[20] The claimed absolute power of the papal hierarchical system is totally contrary to the New Testament concept of the church as “the assembly of believers.” The Papacy’s lust for power is so insatiable that it claims power for itself which rightfully belongs to the Holy Spirit. Thus the Magisterium officially teaches, “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”[21] How does such dogma reflect any historical continuity with biblical doctrine and the practice of the authentic early church?
The early believers held to the Scriptures as the absolute Word of God’s truth. The early Church understood apostolic doctrine as the written Word of the God. From the very start of the post-apostolic age in the writings of such Apostolic Fathers as Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, and Barnabas, there was an exclusive appeal to the Scriptures for the positive teaching of doctrine and for defense against heresy. In the writings of these men the authority cited is that of the Old and New Testaments. In the written texts of the apologists, such as Justin Martyr and Athenagoras, the same exclusive appeal to Scripture is evident. There was no appeal in any of these writings to the authority of an extra-biblical tradition as a separate body of revelation. Rather, it is in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late second century that the concept of an apostolic tradition, which was handed down in the Church in oral form, was first encountered. Irenaeus and Tertullian stated forcefully that all the teachings of the bishops that were given orally were rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures.
Examples of Early Believers Testifying to the Gospel
Polycarp of Smyrna (born c. 69) died a martyr in about the year 155. He testified to being saved through grace and Jesus Christ, “…the Lord Jesus Christ…in whom you believe…knowing, that through grace ye are saved, not from works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ.”[22] Clement of Rome, who died about the year 100, wrote of being justified by faith, “…Therefore, we also, being called through his (God’s) will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works…but through Faith.”[23]
Justin Martyr (c. 100—165) wrote of being righteous before God on account of faith. He stated, “It was not by reason of circumcision that Abraham was testified of God to be righteous, but on account of faith. For, before he was circumcised, it was said of him: Abraham believed in God; and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.”[24]
Irenaeus, who died about the year 190 or as late as 202, clearly explained the Gospel message in Romans, Chapter Three: “When Christ came, he accomplished all things: and still, in the Church, continues to accomplish the New Testament, foretold by the Law, even to consummation. As also the Apostle Paul says in his Epistle to the Romans: but now, without the Law, the righteousness of God is manifested, being testified of by the Law and the Prophets: for the just shall live by faith. But, that the just shall live by faith, had been foretold by the Prophets.”[25] Clement of Alexandria, a contemporary of Justin and Irenaeus in the late second and early third century, gave evidence to the Gospel of grace when he wrote, “Abraham was justified, not from works, but from faith. After the end of life, therefore, it is no profit to men even though now they shall have performed good works, unless they have faith.”[26]
Athanasius in the fourth century likewise testifies of grace and redemption in a clear-cut Gospel message, “Not from these, but from faith, a man is justified; as also was Abraham. Having thus discussed such points, the Apostle shews again: that, in no other manner, can there be redemption and grace to Israel and to the Gentiles, except the original sin, which through Adam passed unto all, be loosed. But this, says he, can be blotted out though no other than through the Son of God….For it was impossible, that any other should loose this transgression. Thus, as through one man sin entered into the world: thus also, through one man, grace came upon all.”[27]
Extensive Growth and Severe Persecution
The spread of the Christian faith during the first three centuries was rapid and extensive. In the providence of God, the main reasons for this were the fidelity and zeal of the preachers of the Gospel, the heroic deaths of the martyrs, the translation of the Scriptures into the languages of the Roman world, and the well developed and expansive Roman road system over which the Gospel was carried. Under the Emperor Septimius Severus (193-211), Christians suffered appallingly. The most severe persecution was under the Emperor Diocletian and his co-regent, Galerius, during the years 303-311. Yet, far from exterminating the Christians and the Gospel, the persecution purified those who preached and increased their ability to give the Gospel message.
Early Church: Northern Italy and the Cottian Alps
Since at least the late eleventh century[28] the Roman Catholic Church has loudly alleged that the early churches of what is today known as Northern Italy[29] were simply those churches that had fallen way from the authority of the Bishop of Rome. But Peter Allix, writing in 1690, shows clearly that these churches were established locally from apostolic times and were not under the Bishop of Rome at any time before the eleventh century. Of their doctrine and practice he states, “It is sufficient to make them deserve the name of apostolical, that they received the doctrine of the Apostles, as a pledge from the hand of their first disciples, which they preserved so very tenderly throughout the following ages.”[30] Allix’s rebuttal of the Roman Catholic charge uses quotations from these churches’ liturgy and from records of the practice of their faith, which regularly included record of increasing disagreement with the Bishop of Rome. At times, Allix quotes the records of the Roman Catholic Church against the believers, showing that the very things of which the Roman Church was accusing them were in fact biblical.
According to Faber, in about the year 406, Vigilantius, a native of Aquitaine, published a treatise in answer to Jerome’s defense of his [Jerome’s] departure from Scripture. In it, Vigilantius “attacked the notion that celibacy is the duty of the clergy; censured…the figment that they [martyrs] are potent intercessors at the throne of grace; ridiculed the blind and almost idolatrous reverence which was paid to their relics; exposed the folly of burning tapers, like the Pagans, before their shrines, in broad day-light; detected the pretended miracles said to be wrought by their senseless remains;…pointed out the useless absurdity of pilgrimages either to Jerusalem or to any other reputed sanctuary.”[31] Although Vigilantius’s treatise is no longer extant, this information comes from Jerome as he seeks to refute Vigilantius during the course of their exchanges. According to Jerome, who resided in Jerusalem, Vigilantius “wrote from a region, situated between the waves of the Adriatic and the Cottian Alps.”[32] Nor was Jerome able to have Vigilantius extirpated from this region, where he worked as a presbyter, because the bishop of the area agreed with Vigilantius. Faber’s point is this:
“This district [where Vigilantius was residing] on the eastern side of the Cottian Alps is the precise country of the Vallenses. Here they claim to have lived at least from the time of Pope Sylvester; and here, in point of fact, as we may presumptively gather from the present remarkable statement of Jerome, that they were actually settled as early as in and before the year 406….
“Here, therefore, only seventy years after the death of Pope Sylvester, we actually find a Church in the valleys of the Cottian Alps, the theological condition of which exactly corresponds with the account handed down, from generation to generation, among the Vallenses themselves: that is to say, we actually find a Church, in the very region where the account teaches us to seek it, protesting, through the mouth of its approved pastor, Vigilantius…against the superstitions of the times, and, in its estimate of those superstitions, openly differing from the bishops of the corrupt Church of Rome.”[33]
The Roman Catholic claim for dominion in the area is refuted by the written record of Jerome’s correspondence with Vigilantius. Further, Pope Pelagius I (555) lamented that “The Bishops of Milan do not come to Rome for ordination,” and this was in accordance with “an ancient custom of theirs.”[34] Allix further notes, “In the year 590, the Bishops of Italy and of the Grisons, to the number of nine, rejected the Communion of the Pope, as of an heretic…protesting [to the Emperor] that they could not communicate with Pope Gregory the First.”[35]
Allix documents the fact that even in the ninth century the churches of Northern Italy were still not under the yoke of papal authority. Rather they were able to hold out until after the death of Claude, Bishop of Turin. Claude, in the mid-ninth century, staunchly defended his diocese against Rome while simultaneously and indefatigably teaching the Gospel and the Bible throughout his diocese by preaching and by writing. Wylie confirms that it was not until the mid-eleventh century that the churches on the plains of Northern Italy finally succumbed to papal authority. Even then the churches in the valleys of the Cottian Alps held true to the Bible in their faith and practice. These are they who were known as the Vaudois, or People of the Valleys.[36]
Faber shows from the text of the Vaudois poem, Noble Lesson, which has imbedded in it the date of 1100, that the language in which the document is written is “derived, without any intervention of an older derivative language, from the decomposed stock of its parent Latin.” This was the language of the Vaudois who had retreated to the valleys of Italian Cottian Alps during the second, third and fourth centuries. Since the Noble Lesson was one of their documents, it shows conclusively that the language of the Vaudois had not changed substantially in all the centuries they lived hidden in their valleys. This confession of faith in poetic form was used to teach their children “the faith once delivered to the saints”. Here, then, are conclusive pieces of evidence—Jerome’s recording of Vigilantius in 406, Claude Bishop of Turin in the early 800’s, and the language in which the Noble Lesson (written in 1100) and other earlier original documents which Samuel Morland procured in 1655—that the Vaudois or Vallenses really were preserved by God in the line of unbroken apostolic faith from the early centuries through the Reformation.
The Vaudois are sometimes called Waldenses. The Roman Catholic Church’s consistent policy has been to try to confuse the origin of the early churches of the Valleys. It contended that it was Peter Waldo who established these churches thus maintaining that they were heretics rather than the true church. However, the still extant historical facts make it clear that the Papacy’s long record of revisionist history is as false today as it was at its inception many centuries ago. One very important fact is that Peter Waldo was not known before 1160 while the Noble Lesson was written in 1100. In 1690 Allix contends, “it is not true that [Peter] Waldo gave this name to the inhabitants of the valleys: They were called Wallenses, or Vaudés, before his time, from the valleys in which they dwelt. This we find….in Ebrardus de Bethune, who wrote in the year 1212, where he asserts, that they called themselves Wallenses…‘because they abode in the ‘valley of tears:’ so that we see that this etymology rather has respect to the place where they lived, which was in the valleys of Piedmont, than to the name of Peter Waldo.”[37]
The testimony of the Vaudois, both in their writing and in their practice, showed that the authority of the Bible continued to be their rule of life.[38] The first distinguishing principle of the Waldenses bore on daily conduct, and was summed up in the words of the apostle: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”[39] The second distinguishing principle was the authority and popular use of the Holy Scriptures, which they had in their native language. There were those among them who could quote the entire Bible from memory. The third principle was the importance of preaching and the rights of believing men to exercise that function. To these fundamental principles based on the Sermon on the Mount, the Vaudois added the rejection of oaths, the condemnation into purgatory, and prayers for the dead. There are only two ways after death, they declared—the way to heaven and the way to hell. The pre-Reformation Vaudois faith and practice touched many people through those dark centuries. They regularly sent out missionaries, many of whom were merchants, to evangelize Europe and attracted converts from many sources. They were to suffer terribly for their faith.
It is an historical fact that these churches of Northern Italy, which had remained faithful to the Scripture from the time of their establishment in the second, third and fourth centuries through the Reformation, were the true churches. The Papal Church clearly was and is still today the heretical schismatic. It is the historical account of these ancient biblical churches northern Italy and of southern France that the Roman Catholic Church has been trying for at least the past nine centuries to wipe out—ethnic cleansing of them by crusades and six hundred years of Inquisition against them, by destruction of the records of their testimony, and by revisionist history. It is the providence of God that to this very day Papal Rome has not succeeded.
The Paulician Churches from the First Century
The Paulician churches were of apostolic origin, and were planted in Armenia in the first century. “Through Antioch and Palmyra the faith must have spread into Mesopotamia and Persia; and in those regions become the basis of the faith as it is spread in the Taurus mountains as far as Ararat. This was the primitive form of Christianity. The churches in the Taurus range of mountains formed a huge recess or circular dam into which flowed the early Paulician faith to be caught and maintained for centuries, as it were, a backwater from the main for centuries.”[40] The earliest center of Christianity in Armenia was at Taron, which was the constant home and base of operations of the Paulicians. They claimed that they were of apostolic origin. Upon this point Adeney says, “Therefore, it is quite arguable that they should be regarded as representing the survival of a most primitives type of Christianity…Ancient Oriental Baptists, these people were in many respects Protestants before Protestantism.”[41]
In the eighth century the Paulicians, scattered by persecution, spread westward through Bulgaria and along the northern coast of the Mediterranean as far as the Pyrenees Mountains. Many settled in southern France where they became known as the Albigenses. All along the way, the Paulicians planted local churches which continued strong in biblical doctrine and practice.[42] They did not recognize persons of other communions as belonging to the churches. “We do not belong to these,” they said. “They have long ago broken connection with the church and have been excluded.”[43]
Pre-Reformation Missionaries to Europe
From the year 405 when Patrick arrived in Ireland there were more than six hundred years of fruitfulness from the clarity of the Gospel message preached by Patrick and those who worked with him. There were many famous Irish missionaries like Patrick, such as Columba, Columbanus, Kilian and Forannan, who carried the Gospel with the same truthfulness as Patrick to Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, Italy and beyond well up to the tenth century. From at least the eleventh century onward, the Vaudois sent their missionaries, called barbes, throughout Europe. They carried the same Gospel message as did the Irish missionaries. In 1209 the Papacy began its first crusade against European believers, starting with the Albigenses in southern France. Those who could escape did. They spread the Gospel wherever they were scattered. In about 1332, Pope John XXII sent his inquisitors into the territory of the Vaudois to execute the laws of the Inquisition against these believers. From then on, the Vaudois were scattered throughout France, the Low Countries, Germany, Poland, Bohemia, Moravia, England, Calabria, Naples and further. They, too, spread the Gospel wherever they went.[44]
The Legacy of the Early Church
We have identified the true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ by two marks—they hold to the sole authority of Scriptures and to the true Gospel. We have briefly documented the true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ as it existed in various countries before the Reformation of the sixteenth century. Down through the centuries, these believers were scattered from Jerusalem to the Piedmont valley of Italy to France, Spain, to Scotland, Ireland, England and throughout all of Europe. We have documented peoples honoring the true faith, and bearing the Scriptural truth.
Conclusion
The stark reality of the facts of history of the true church permeated with the Gospel of God’s grace in doctrine and practice utterly voids the papal assertion of an historical continuity between the early believers and the papal church via their dogma of apostolic succession. Rather the Roman Catholic Church is the proven schismatic from the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
As the true church prior to the Reformation and the Reformers saw, the papal system with its blasphemies against the redeeming work of the Lord Jesus Christ, its idolatry and Inquisition, its claim to apostolic succession—all these show “the woman” “sitting upon the scarlet-colored beast.”[45] The same “woman drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus”[46] is still today making merchandise of the souls of men while purporting to “dialogue” with true Christians as “brothers and sisters in Christ.”
But the wary understand that the love for the Papacy is hazardous, such as to bring to mind the Scripture, “all the world wondered after the beast.”[47] They have noted that, as with the funeral of John Paul II, so also with April 2008 visit of Benedict XVI to the USA. Both were widely received with such reverence and awe as to be called adoration.
Like true believers of old, we must enter into battle. The Lord is with us; we will have the final victory. The command of the Holy Spirit is still this: “having done all, to stand. Stand therefore.”[48] The certainty that we know Him and are His should animate our efforts, and encourage us in our struggles. The glory of God’s free grace in the Gospel, based on the written Word of Scripture alone, remains the legacy of the Early Church and is still available to all the Lord’s people.♦
Richard Bennett of Berean Beacon ministry–Website: http://www.bereanbeacon.org
Permission is given by the author to copy this article if it is done in its entirety without any changes. Permission is also given post this article in its entirety on Internet WebPages.
[2] “The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity—rooted in the apostolic succession between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church:…” Official Declaration “Dominus Iesus” 2000 §16. Italic in the original.
[3] “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church.”
[6] Matthew 16:16-17
[7] Acts 8:1
[8] The terms overseer and elder/pastor are used interchangeably (Acts 20:17, 28; I Peter 5:1-4).
[9] Matthew 16:18
[10] Ephesians 1:22-23
[11] Ephesians 2:8, 9
[12] Corinthians 10:32
