Posted on 11/14/2017 2:24:54 PM PST by nickcarraway
Robert Jeffress spent Wednesday with Donald Trump, supporting the president during his fundraising visit to the Belo Mansion in downtown Dallas. On Thursday, the First Baptist Dallas pastor and Trump's biggest evangelical supporter had to do something a lot less fun — take to the Fox News airwaves to defend himself from charges that he is anti-Catholic.
Word of Jeffress' potentially anti-Catholic views bubbled to the surface this week when a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders about her boss's continued praise for the Dallas demagogue, given Jeffress' controversial statements about the Catholic church. Sanders said that she wasn't "aware of Robert Jeffress being anti-Catholic" and that she knew that he worked with Texas Catholics on events like the anti-abortion rights demonstration March for Life.
On Fox News, Jeffress repeated Sanders' line, confirming that he works with Catholics against abortion, and said that the characterization of his thoughts about Catholicism was inaccurate.
"What they did was they went back and recycled old quotes from years ago that were either completely manufactured at the time or ripped out of context," Jeffress said.
The Observer believes that Jeffress deserves a fair hearing about whether he was taken out of context, so we've taken the liberty of transcribing, in their entirety, Jeffress' comments about Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church from a 2010 segment on his radio show Pathway to Victory.
"This is the Babylonian mystery religion that spread like a cult throughout the entire world. The high priests of that fake religion, that false religion, the high priests of that religion would wear crowns that resemble the heads of fish, that was in order to worship the fish god Dagon, and on those crowns were written the words, ‘Keeper of the Bridge,’ the bridge between Satan and man.
"That phrase, Keeper of the Bridge — the Roman equivalent of it is Pontifex Maximus. It was a title that was first carried by the Caesars and then the emperors and finally by the Bishop of the Rome, Pontifex Maximus, the Keeper of the Bridge.
"You can see where we’re going with this. It is that Babylonian mystery religion that infected the early church. One of the churches it infected was the church of Pergamos, which is one of the recipients of the Book of Revelation. And the early church was corrupted by this Babylonian mystery religion, and today the Roman Catholic Church is the result of that corruption.
"Much of what you see in the Catholic Church today doesn’t come from God’s word; it comes from that cultlike, pagan religion. Now you say, ‘Pastor, how can you say such a thing? That is such an indictment of the Catholic Church. After all, the Catholic Church talks about God and the Bible and Jesus and the blood of Christ and salvation.’
"Isn’t that the genius of Satan? If you want to counterfeit a dollar bill, you don’t do it with purple paper and red ink. You’re not going to fool anybody with that. But if you want to counterfeit money, what you do is make it look closely related to the real thing as possible.
"And that’s what Satan does with counterfeit religion. He uses, he steals, he appropriates all of the symbols of true biblical Christianity, and he changes it just enough in order to cause people to miss eternal life."
Basically, Jeffress believes that Catholicism is a counterfeit of genuine Christianity, descended from a Babylonian fish-worshiping cult. Its resemblance to the real article shows Satan's genius, Jeffress says. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the faith practiced by 70 million Americans.
I will not be easily convinced that God has any love left for the person who yields up his physical life, expecting annihilation of the soul and spirit rather than an excruciating eternal death. The basis is the indication from Genesis 6:3 (AV):
"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh:
yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."
Man was created to have continual fellowship with the Eternal God and His Son; but (subsequent to the fall and the entrance of sin and death) there is apparently a limit to which God will patiently suffer rejection of His plan of salvation, and that is the point at which the soul is parted from the earthly corruptible flesh body.
The discussion needs to consider this phase of the human existence, setting the sphere of redeemability to one side, which is the only one the responders here seem to be focusing on, to the neglect of God's disposition to those who have left this life with their relationship to Him unrepaired.
I think we miss an important chance for our Lord when we let pride determine who and how we should spread the Gospel. I believe that we are charged to spread the Gospel to everyone to get them into that first contact with Jesus and get their faith going.
I am, as I have mentioned before, I life-long Catholic and very happy with my faith. But I also believe that attacking or annoying other persons of Christian faith is wrong and counterproductive. At this point in time, I am very happy to have Protestant compatriots who love Jesus and live their faith. If I can get a nonbeliever to is not open to the Catholic Church to become a good Baptist or a Methodist or a Presbyterian, then we have another fine Christian on the way to Heaven.
I am a descendant of no less than the Mathers of New England and the German Dunkers of the Palatinate - so the Christian faith in all its form has blessed my family.
I don't debate with anyone unless it's friendly and if they are fellow Christians I will never attack your path to Christ. Would I love to have everybody come to Mass and the Sacraments with me? Absolutely. But I'll never consider myself a better Christian than you are.
In '66-67 I was Southwest of Danang, "Dodge City".
Semper Fi,
Chainmail
This keeps drawing and influencing those whose need is for affection. That is not what is in vew when one talks about Godly love .
He is first, All-righteous, totally without sin.
Love outside the context of righteousness is not love at all.
Hebrews 7:1-3 (AV)(my emphases):
"For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God,
who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings,
and blessed him;
To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all;
first being by interpretation* King of righteousnessjustice,
and
after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peacelove;
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
------
Note:
* מלך melek = king; צדק tsedeq = righteousness (or <>justice, if you wish)
-------
The very picture of God in Jesus, a figure of the Christ at leat, if not actually a Christophany (which I belive). It is Jesus, the Man of Sorrow, Who interposed Himself between His fellowmen and The Mighty God's justice against the sins of man, that placated God's furious wrath, and thus illustrates the full hatred of God toward sin and sinners.
The big danger I see in people pushing the *God hates* scenario is that it will justify that person’s hatred or callous indifference to others who have not yet been redeemed.
The big danger is that those whose lifestyle is rejecting the Gospel do not make a differentiation between who they are versus what they do. Their concept is that they are what they do
If you cannot bring them to a conviction that they are incapable of reaching a goodness that will satisfy a Holy God, no matter how beneficial their works; and are in tears for the sinful things they have done, it is not they will not be saved. Covering their sins with your "love" will not convince them, or save them. It will only insulate them from experiencing the consequences of their false beliefs.
Here it is. The duty of a herald of the Gospel is to help people see that:
A ctions
arise from
B eliefs.
and they have
C onsequences.
It seems that you are afraid of the persecution you would receive if you, like the "Calvinists" you decry, preached righteousness to them (witholding falsely-motivated compassion), rather than accepting that the remnant of those who do take your preaching seriously and become saved by God's righteous treatment of sin, will thank you for ever.
I say this, not as if it feels good to confront your proposition, nor as if it were pleasing to stir things up by contention, but because I love Jesus and His Righteousness, and I love you as a sister and fellow-worker in the Gospel, as Paul did the Corinthians, to overcome their failure to apply church discipline to settle differences:
2 Corinthians 7:8-12 (AV):
"For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not
repent, though I did repentregret: for I perceive that the same
epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye
sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a
godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in
nothing.
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be
repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a
godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what
clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what
fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what
revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be
clear in this matter.
Wherefore, though I wrote unto you, I did it not for his
cause that had done the wrong, nor for his cause that
suffered wrong, but that our care for you in the sight of
God might appear unto you."
=====
Metmom, it is our job to present--and live--the Gospel so as to bring first sorrow, then happiness:
John 16:8-11 (AV):
"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
Of sin, because they believe not on me;
Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged."
Where in the Gospel, does it preach only the sweetness of God in Christ? Eh?
I agree that there is none good. Jesus told the rich man that no one is good but God alone. (Matt 19:17, Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19)
However, Jesus did use the word good to describe His creation. He stated that our heavenly Father makes His sun shine on the bad and the good. (Matt 5:45) He also stated that a good person brings forth good out of a store of goodness, but an evil person brings forth evil out of a store of evil. (Matt 12:35, Luke 6:45) And in the parable of the talents, Jesus mentioned good and faithful servants. (Matt 24:21,23)
Just so, my Mom was a good and faithful Christian.
From your posts here my initial impression is that you were a good commanding officer for whom it would have been an honor to serve. My old outfit, the 174th AIB of the NYARNG was also "Semper Fideles" although not with such an glorious and illustrious history as the USMC.
Well, thank you- I think that I was a good commanding officer. We got a lot done and thank God I didn’t lose anyone. Highest reenlistment rate in the 1st Marine Division!
Would have been great to have you with us!
I do not know where I said anything that made those in Hell to be loved by God, especial if love is to be considered an attitude resulting in action. From the beginning I argued that God hates/abohors sinners and who are the objects of His anger an wrath, as were (and without faith would and can be), but yet loves them, thus is not willing that any perish. However, as I also stated God "will send the lost to Hell and "despise their image" (Psalms 73:20)" when He awakes in judgment of them.
That's a long stretch. I would like to hear what you see has changed.
I think we miss an important chance for our Lord when we let pride determine who and how we should spread the Gospel.
So it is pride that compels us to witness to Catholics?
I believe that we are charged to spread the Gospel to everyone to get them into that first contact with Jesus and get their faith going.
But Mormons as well as liberal Prots and not just typical Catyhs will profess faith in Jesus, but never had a manifest transformational day of salvation/conversion with it5s basic profound changes.
I am, as I have mentioned before, I life-long Catholic and very happy with my faith. But I also believe that attacking or annoying other persons of Christian faith is wrong and counterproductive.
But which means that you are either a modern liberal Catholic who does not believe that former practicing RCs/now practicing evangelical believers as myself will (or likely will) be lost if I die opposed to Catholicism's distinctive binding beliefs, yet trusting Christ with penitent faith, and that Prot churches are not worthy to be properly called churches," or you are a traditional RC who censors liberal ecumenical Catholics and believes we will (or likely will) be lost unless as evangelicals opposed to Rome we repent of this and convert to Rome.
In either case you have make yourself an object of warranted reproof by us, and by traditional RCs in the former case.
At this point in time, I am very happy to have Protestant compatriots who love Jesus and live their faith. If I can get a nonbeliever to is not open to the Catholic Church to become a good Baptist or a Methodist or a Presbyterian, then we have another fine Christian on the way to Heaven.
Then you implicitly condemn even canonized RC "saints" such as
St. Frances Xavier Cabrini: "Many Protestants have almost the same practices as we, only they do not submit to the Holy Father and attach themselves to the true Ark of Salvation. They do not want to become Catholics and unite themselves under the banner of truth wherein alone there is true salvation. Of what avail is it, children, if Protestants lead naturally pure, honest lives, yet lack the Holy Ghost? They may well say: 'We do no harm; we lead good lives'; but, if they do not enter the true fold of Christ, all their protestations are in vain." St. Frances Xavier Cabrini, "Travels", Chicago: 1944, pp. 84, 71.
As well as popes toward "resisters" as myself, even infallibly speaking,
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff... there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. "” - Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam:
More recently,
He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. - CCC 336; Lumen Gentium
...the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.”62 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
Which is it? Do not play the game "only God knows," for this is a doctrinal question, whether one who knows the claims of Rome but resists, even opposes her distinctive binding believers, though trusting Christ with penitent faith. Or in other words, are you a "cafeteria Catholic" or a faithful one?
I am a descendant of no less than the Mathers of New England and the German Dunkers of the Palatinate - so the Christian faith in all its form has blessed my family.
Both objects of RC censure and wrath in the past, but since her unholy sword of men was removed then now such may be merely separated brethren (rather than having limbs separated), yet Rome excludes those who know "that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ," but "refuse either to enter it or to remain in it".
The only interpretation i can see that would allow you to consider a former RC such as myself, who contends against Catholic distinctives yet had gladly helped many, to be on my "way to Heaven," is if you understood "knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ" to mean I do not know this as being True, but simply know this is what she claims while being honestly convinced in the light of Scripture.
Try to see how well that floats with the traditional RCs we contend with here. Meanwhile, the very fact that Vatican 2 is open to variant interpretations even on this cardinal issue is contrary to the RC position that we need a pope and infallible magisterium to submit to in order to effectively deal with divisions.
As one poster wryly commented,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
I doesn't seem as though faith is particularly enjoyable to you if your every waking second is looking for fights.
With your strenuous and lengthy responses, you miss the most important part of Jesus' mission: to know his Father and to love Him with all you heart and soul and mind. Bickering with your Christian neighbors is useless and counterproductive. We are faced with a billion plus evangelical Muslims and almost as many hateful atheists/Communists/agents of the Devil. Do you suppose that the Lord intended that we should all beat each other up over 1. Things that happened at a more primitive stage of our past and 2. Who is the last person standing with the "best understanding of Scripture"?
I think you missed the whole Ecumenical Movement under St. John Paul II. It has nothing to do with "liberal or Conservative" - it has to do with uniting as Christians and pushing back against the common enemies of Christianity and winning more converts.
Ho does your frenetic approach achieve that?
Please know that I am not contending with you regarding our ongoing witness to those about us even though we might suspect their adamantine unreachability. We do the proclaiming, they do the repenting, and God does the saving. Like Paul Revere, who cried out the warning, but did not stop to debate about it. Having alerted one district, he just went on to the next. How the hearers dealt with the knowledge was not within his purview.
I left out a response to your question about the Corps then and now. When I signed up in ‘65, the “Old Corps” were the WWII and Korean War vets and they were our senior NCOs. They were veterans of Iwo and Chosin and they had little patience for us new kids.
I was one of the last Marines issued an M-1 rifle in Infantry training regiment and then a BAR. My fellow Marines were everything from people like me - an Altar Boy that never heard any bad language to criminals who were ordered to serve four years in the Corps instead of going to prison for four years. We were also at the leading edge of integration and the fistfights in the barracks were bloody. Interesting times.
Arrived in Vietnam in January ‘66, assigned to an artillery battery. We had the old cotton utilities and leather boots and the tactics and techniques were really Korean War vintage and we learned very quickly that was a different war and a different enemy. Most of our casualties were from mines and booby traps. Only a precious few of our leaders clued us in on what was going on.
At some point, we new guys took over. We knew who the enemy was and how they operated and we had modified our tactics and the enemy learned to avoid us if they could. I ended up as an artillery scout with an infantry company and that was really where the rubber met the road.
I was wounded badly May ‘67 and spent the next 3 1/2 years recovering. I was commissioned in ‘73 and was part of the last operations in Vietnam with BLT 1/3 offshore.
The Corps is very different now - better weapons, better tactics, better quality of young people. The young Marines now are better educated and if you can take the time to explain how and why something has to be done, they’ll get it done. No more “jail or the Corps” Marines - which is a little sad because they were deadly. The kids today are more precious than we were. Today if a few are killed, it rates national attention. Back then, we had almost 400 dead in one week with the 1st Marine Division and hardly called for a column-inch in the papers.
There are times that I wish that I was still back with them.
Your latest response once again fails to provide any substantive argument against what refutes you, and which has reduced you to ad hominem and reiterating the same bankrupt ecumenism as before, and which is ignorant and contradictory .
You ignore the substantial and critical salvific differences btwn those who profess Christ, as if mere confession of faith in Christ means faith in the Christ of the gospel message of Scripture, and condemn those who contend against false doctrine in that interest, and want unity based on doctrine, that of profession of Christ, against those who oppose this doctrine, as if attacks on the Christian faith are only physical, and if conservative evangelicals debating conservative RCs does not mean that we can and do condemn Israel, due (at least on my part) to the very commitment to Truth that results in debating "merely" theological foes.
Thus while condemning intolerance of doctrinal differences you are essentially intolerant of those who disagree with your sloppy ecumenicism, which is that of a Christianity which cannot stand against those who attack it and is hardly worth defending.
Paul was not writing in response to Muslims when he said, >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. (Galatians 1:8) and the devil usually initially comes dressed in Christian garb, as a angel of light, who typically mixes valid Truth with critical falsehood. .
Yet we can stand in certain forms and to a degree with even Mormons (which faith began with a demonic angel of light) against such evils as the homosexual agenda, but a Christianity that ignores the substantial and critical differences in salvific is not Biblical Christian faith and will not prevail against the gates of Hell.
Your dream of a warm and fuzzy Christianity has even resulted in you differing with your own historical church, which at one time faced a majority of "Christians" that professed Arianism, and as shown and ignored, excludes such evangelicals as myself, and rejects Prot churches as being worthy to be properly called "churches."
And few therein realize the regeneration which results in real spiritual unity, which evangelicals, despite their secondary differences most strongly attest to (If Catholics even voted like evangelicals in Presidential elections (80% Republican) then perhaps Obama might not have seen 8 years of negative transformation). And that unity is because of commitment to Truth, the same thing that resulted in the modern day evangelical movement.
But which movement has been becoming weaker but more liberal ecumenical, and which is what the devil - and it seem you unawares - are proposing, that we should do more than basically protest alike against a common enemy as Islam, but ignore our substantial doctrinal differences in the interest of greater unity. But which is a shallow and weak front, in contrast to spiritually and doctrinally separating from those who hold to false salvific doctrine and thus contending against both Islam, Mormonism, Catholicism and the like.
Division because of essential Truth results in a unity better and stronger than unity at the expense of it. Mind you that as a former fundamental Baptist I can attest that there often is an unwarranted degree of separation btwn born again Bible Christians on certain matters, but as explained and shown before , with Catholicism the issues are salvific and overall more substantial .
Yet you even ignore the differences you have your own brethren while arguing for your insubstantial ecumenism.
God's nature is holiness. Love is an attribute of this holiness.
We are not holy nor do we wish to be holy unless God changes our hearts. Now I would quote some verses in support of this but I would have to quote almost the entire Bible. It isn't important what you may "think" about self-professing Calvinists. It is whether they are scripturally right. We could give everyone a group hug but that doesn't help to have a right understanding of God.
Any picture that I'd have would be wrong; if the Scripture is true.
1 Corinthians 2:9
However, as it is written: "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived"- the things God has prepared for those who love him-
But my fault human logic concludes that since we will be ETERNALLY with the Word; we'd need no written word to study.
1 Corinthians 13:8-11
But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.
Just some YouTube© kids that Jesus said not to send away.
Matthew 19:14 KJV
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
The greatest gift of our faith is that our Creator loves us, all of us, and gives us every chance to be with Him.
You need to slow down on the intensity and enjoy the gifts of our faith.
Homebound; we landed on what appeared to be another DFW being built!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.