Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Ecumenical Teachers at Calvary Chapel Bible College?

I know probably by now Calvary Chapel feels like I am picking on them, but the more and more I have examined this church, red flags jump out at me, constantly. I have no regrets in leaving. My worries are for the good people in the pews trusting in some leaders who do not deserve that trust. There are some who are born again, and I am praying the Holy Spirit warns them of things too. Almost every church group out there is falling away and even independent fundamentalist baptist churches are being infiltrated especially by Dominionists or those teaching false Calvinist or other theologies.

One of the main reasons I had to walk out of Calvary Chapel and never really belonged was their more neo-evangelical view about ecumenism vs. biblical separation from the one world religion. When having discussions about this online, some Calvary Chapelists would actually ask me: "What one world religion?" In this case, I think about what their particular teachers must be neglecting to tell them. On message boards, I saw Calvary Chapelists including one claiming to be an intern pastor [he very well could have been] posting against "schism" the same way a Catholic would [where the greatest sin is leaving a church] and one was praising the Creeds of Roman Catholic councils. Things really have gone off the rails.

One thing about the falling away churches overall, Satan has used the seminaries to infiltrate and bring in false doctrines, Catholicism, doctrines of demons, vain philosophies and ecumenism. Influence the young men who become pastors, take them away from the Bible and false teachings will proliferate. Subtle deceptions to sidetrack them from the truth and lead them to compromise after compromise. There is a reason some refer to the seminaries as cemeteries.

The Catholic and mainline Protestant ones already have their students focus on questioning the authorship of the gospels, endless classes on Plato, Socrates, humanism, liberation theology and other distractions from scripture, but this does not mean other Bible colleges and other places haven't been led down the same false paths too. They got their Jesuits and others coming in to influence them to be future signers of ecumenical documents like Catholics and Evangelicals Together or the Manhattan Declaration.

These teachers as victims of indoctrination themselves or willful deceivers are everywhere, and most of them are teaching acceptance of Catholicism [even if they admit some errors] as a fellow Christian church that is part of the "body of christ" and promoting the ecumenical movement. Most scoff at Alberto Rivera but his claims of the Catholic church infiltrating Protestant [and now evangelical] seminaries, seems to be coming more true then ever before.



Looking at the Calvary Chapel Bible College list of teachers, one interesting teacher I see on their Guest Teachers and Lecturers List, is Dr. Norm Geisler. I remember this name from earlier, and know he is one of those evangelicals who has a more watered down view of Rome out there. Here one writer in an article entitled: "Jesuit-trained Evangelical Leader President Norman L. Geisler's Role in Destroying Evangelical Christianity in America" shows some major concerns. He warns about Francis Beckwith too, another evangelical who headed The Evangelical Theological Society who returned to the Catholic church in 2007. There are many out there like this. Some of them come in teach the evangelicals for a time and then swim the Tiber.

Norm Geisler co-authored a book with Joshua M. Betancourt called "Is Rome the True Church: A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim". Now this sounds good doesn't it? The book does explore some errors. But realize this, his co-author went to go on to convert to Catholicism. Mr. Beckwith was quite happy with these turn of events here. Many Catholics too remarked on this as well as this Catholic blogger who had praise for Geisler and what he has learned from him:

A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim. Geisler, a Calvinist who got his Ph.D. from Loyola, is
respected by a lot of Catholics
(I've never read him, but I've heard good things), and the question being tackled
is one of obvious interest to Catholics, since if we're right on it, the Great Schism and Reformation are over (or ought to be).

By the way, I do not know if he is correct about him being a Calvinist, but he definitely got the education from the Jesuits [Loyola being a Jesuit university]. This proves nothing, as there are many who go to Catholic school who renounce what they were taught when they are born again but given his would be belief about the Reformation above, it is of concern. He also has co-written other books, one that points out the agreements, evangelicals have with Catholics called: "Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences".

What are Christians who know the truth about the Pope as antichrist to think of Norm Geisler's comments like these? Here we see the praise for the papacy from him:


"Relativism, pluralism and naturalism are the three main foes of evangelicalism today and they're the main foes of conservative Roman Catholics," said Norman Geisler, president of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, N.C., and co-author of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences.

"We rejoice in the choice because he's going to hold the line and he's not going to allow the liberal element in the Catholic Church to reverse any of those things."

Here we see the same deception of the "culture wars", the idea that the Pope is against "pluralism" [beyond that of Rome exalting it's own throne] is beyond absurd! What is the Pope going to hold the line on? More deception? That is all we have seen since 2005.

There are other areas of concern too, in seeing what Dr. Norm Geisler stands for and teaches, as shown in this book "The Bible, Natural Theology and Natural Law: Conflict Or Compromise?" by Robert Mornay where it points out: [Read page 311, there's more there]

"Dr. Norman Geisler was the first to openly break with the historic evangelical position on Aquinas. In his book defending Thomas Aquinas, he stated
that since the previous generation of Protestant apologists, such as Carl Henry, Francis Schaeffer, Van Ti, etc were now dead, the time was not ripe for him and other "Thomists" to come out of the closet"


So basically this man, has made it clear, he adheres to [in my words but summing up what a Thomist basically is]"the philosophical school of a Catholic priest and saint". This statement is accurate, one can google for themselves, Geisler's involvement with Thomism. Also realize Aquinas supported the Catholic church Inquisitions, and offered his own advice on "The Treatment of Heretics".

So what are teachers like Geisler doing at Calvary Chapel Bible College and also heading seminaries: earlier at the Southern Evangelical Seminary and now Veritas Evangelical Seminary? There are strong ties to Calvary Chapel with Veritas and here is up coming conference in November [being held at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa] with Geisler as one of the speakers.





It saddens me that these type of teachers who while they may announce Catholicism as holding errors do not discern what it it truly is [the harlot, and leader of Mystery Babylon as warned in scripture], and bring some of its teachings, philosophical and otherwise, into seminaries and evangelical churches, and promote ecumenism. While we do not know the specifics of the motivations or influence of specific folks like Beckwith, Geisler, etc, I do believe planned Catholic/Jesuit infiltration and influence of the churches has happened and has been going for years. This is why the seminaries across a wide scope from Fuller to many others have fallen away and why ecumenism is promoted as well as false theology.



2 Timothy 4:3-4, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
























67 comments:

Anonymous said...

Amen, too true. What also permeates a lot of evangelical circles is the Jesuit false teachings of futurism in regards to eschatology. This has such a firm hold upon them, that they would rather overlook or uphold false teachings at times in order to defend it.

Bible Believer said...

I am not sure about what I feel about the concept of "futurism" [I do believe there events happening now and in future from Revelation and do not take the position of the Preterists] but I do believe there are Pre-Trib deceptions emulating from the Jesuits/Catholic church as an orgin. American Christians especially have been taken to a huge place of deception by their churches, that teach a false Christian Triumphalism in this world--Dominionism. One thing I am pondering {studying now so this is not a declarative statement} is the possibilities of of why Rome would be interested in pointing away from the Pope as a would be Antichrist or the Antichrist.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for posting this. I used to know a man that fashioned himself as a great "apologist", he came out of Calvary chapel Albuquerque, and was at that time studying under Norman Geisler. All these guys are connected with one another, and you must know that Calvary chapel is fully infiltrated by the catholic jesuit counter-reformation. So much so that Chuck Smith himself says in his books that catholicism is Christian.

So I spoke with this self-proclaimed "apologist", and asked him which parts of catholicism do you agree with, since you assert that it is Christian? These parts?

1) Being born again is by water baptism
2) Works are necessary to enter heaven
3) There are seven books that should be added to the Bible
4) The pope is the vicar of Christ, and speaks authoritatively even over Scripture
5) Mary and the saints can hear prayers and deserve adoration (worship, in other words)

Just those five alone, should have everyone in agreement that catholicism is not Christian. Of course, there are tons more false doctrines of catholicism that could easily be added to this list.

Some "apologist" that cannot even identify catholicism as one of the world's biggest cults, masquerading as a Christian church, deceiving millions.

Calvary chapel is an ecumenical and compromised enterprise.

Anonymous said...

P.S. I wanted to add that I am a futurist that believes in the pre-tribulational rapture. Catholicism speaks against futurism and against the rapture.

By the way, I should also add to my list there of five points, a point that should really be part of points one and two. And that point is:

"Purgatory is necessary to cleanse from sins"

This is an attack against Jesus and the death of Jesus and the blood of Jesus which are the only true payment for our sins.

"Purgatory" is a sick doctrine that has millions dying waiting to go there to "wash away sins in purgatory", only to find themselves in hell in reality.

Now, if someone cares about souls, wouldn't they warn the person that catholicism leads to hell on just this point alone? Since the person is believing in "purgatory" for their sins, then they are not believing in Jesus alone for salvation.

Anonymous said...

Geisler going to a jesuit university, speaks volumes. Anyone who knows that the spirit of antichrist has been working through jesuit heresies for centuries, will immediately see Geisler as a plant by jesuits put there to infiltrate.

And supposed "evangelicals" fall for it. Right into the mouth of Rome.

Bible Believer said...

Anon #1, you are welcome. Yes there are many of the so called "great apologists" [oddly all focusing on the Emergent movement while opening the door to the wolves]. You are right all these guys are connected to each other. On a lark, I googled Fuller Seminary [the home of huge deceptions and Calvary Chapel and even some of the Calvary Chapel pastors and teachers went there as well.
http://veritasseminary.com/edu/pages/faculty--staff.php

It's like a giant spider web of the apostate Christian world and they all seem to be in each other's backpockets.

I believe that Calvary Chapel is fully infiltrated as well, and definitely more and more is showing itself to be a Catholic Jesuit counter reformation operation. What to know one thing that struck me, everyone hates on Alberto Rivera, and I'm not saying the man was perfect, but I remember reading how back in the 70s he warned the DOVE was a marker used for an jesuit infiltrated church. One thing I have noticed is all these Calvary Chapel pastors sure seem liked minded about the RCC, seeing it as a Christian church too even if they admit some errors. Ever see a dissenter? They all do apologetics about the same stuff, going on and on about the Emergent movement at their bible conferences, but ever see one directly call out the RCC as the harlot or warn that Christians shouldnt follow ecumenical leaders like Billy Graham ikn praising the Pope? I sure haven't.

Lest anyone think Im picking on Calvary Chapel, I think all the churches are being infiltrated, every church group out there except for very few fundie hold outs has been led into the Lausanne, World evangelical trap. The fundamentalist churches are getting their deceivers too: [closet Masons, Dominionists, and others]. The top leadership of all the denominations seems intertwined in a spiderweb of deceit.

I am not surprised this apologist defended Catholicism to you. I've talked to enough pastors [evangelical and otherwise] to know most of them coming out of the seminaries believe likewise. Once I got this guy mad at me, "How dare you say the Catholic church is NOT Christian"!"

You are right those 5 doctrines alone sum up that the RCC is a false gospel, for me however I say the RCC is false based on one premise, their false "christ" in the Eucharist as well.
Some "apologist" that cannot even identify catholicism as one of the world's biggest cults, masquerading as a Christian church, deceiving millions.

Calvary chapel is an ecumenical and compromised enterprise.

Bible Believer said...

Anon #1 I agree with you about Purgatory, Purgatory denies the cleansng of the blood of Jesus Christ. In that alone it is a huge blasphemy. Want to know how many lost people told me, "oh I'm not worried, God will clean me up of my sins in Purgatory!"

You are right it is a pathway to hell.

Bible Believer said...

Anon #2, When I explore even the evangelical spiderweb, so many of them have gone to Jesuit universities, and I am not just talking about a stint in Catholic school, like I had with the nuns and uniforms, but advanced education. [master degrees, doctorates]. This applies not only not only to the clergy, but to many politicians as well. This doesnt prove guilt in itself, as the Catholic educational system is so vast, as far as non-beleivers going in choosing where to go to college but it makes one wonder about how some are being strongly influenced. Why on earth would a supposely bible-believing evangelical knowingly choose a Jesuit University for any sort of advanced education? Yep evangelicals are being led right into the mouth of Rome.

Bible Believer said...

Want to clarify; I do believe there are OUT and OUT PLANTS out there too by the Jesuits. Some will scoff at "conspiracy theories" but definitely in some cases [we may not be able to prove any of the specific ones] the plants are out there.

Anonymous said...

It is good reason why seminary should be called "cemetery". It is the place to go to have Biblical truth be dead to the "student" there.

When they use catholic false "history", when they claim that catholicism is Christian, when they go to jesuit universities, they are fakes.

Anonymous said...

I would add one last comment, catholicism has always created this "Christian celebrity" mentality, that is supposed to have us in awe of the "Christian celebrity" and therefore have us turn off our Biblical discernment.

As in, "Oh, Norman Geisler is there? Wow, he's such a big name!".

Yet he's jesuit catholic trained!

We should have the Bible above "Christian celebrities".

Bible Believer said...

I agree. In my archives there is a blog entry called "The Hold Celebrity Preachers Have" [you are right about this coming from Catholic influence] It is really one of the major sins of the Nicholatians. Yeah the seminaries are cemetaries, the more you're preacher is "educated" by one of those places, the more you better be watching out!

Bible Believer said...

mistake above YOUR not You're [typed too fast] LOL

Anonymous said...

Mt 13:3 (KJV) And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Mt 13:24 (KJV) Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Bible Believer said...

Many quote that verse, trying to convince Christians they are to remain with the tares and keep following [and defending] them. I hope that is not the intention of the poster above.

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Bible Believer said...

I found this quote too, that speaks of his support of evangelicals uniting with Rome.

http://cephasministry.com/holding_hands_with_the_pope.html


Norman Geisler, well-known Christian apologist, was interviewed concerning his views on Catholic-evangelical cooperation. He concludes that "the differences are not as great as generally perceived and they are not as crucial. In my opinion, they don't involve heresy on either side of the fence." He was asked the question, "Is there a growing awareness among our fellow evangelicals of the theological common ground between themselves and Catholics?" His answer: "I would have to admit that more Evangelicals see the need to cooperate socially and ethically. That's good because it's forced evangelicals to reevaluate their relationship to Roman Catholics. But I see also a growing awareness of this doctrinal understanding. I had a conversation with a couple of noted evangelicals at the last Evangelical Theological Society meeting and they were in total agreement with what I am saying here."



17. "If We Don't Hang Together, We're Going to Hang Separately," Interview with Norman Geisler, The Southern Cross, January 13, 1994.

Anonymous said...

Norman Geisler is a 'hidden reef' in evangelicalism and has been operating as such for decades. Hidden reefs are not easily detected false teachers who come into the churches to deceive and subvert them. We are always to be on the lookout for them and expose them when found to warn other Christians, and have nothing to do with them.

Geisler is Catholic Jesuit trained and talks typically Catholic jesuitical. For those who don't know about the Jesuits (most evangelicals don't, I didn't either until a few years ago), their number one priority has always been, since their founding 450 years ago as the leading Catholic Church's Counter Reformation front, to destroy 'protestantism wherever found and to destroy America's Constitutional Republic, in order to take both under the spiritual and temporal authority of the papacy, and all other countries and religions as well.

If you notice in Geisler's statements, his focus is always to move evangelicals toward Rome....while the Catholic church, which claims to be the only true church, never has and never will compromise an inch of their false Christian beliefs with the Bible beliefs of evangelicals. Geisler and today's multitudes of his ilk are ALWAYS posing for a one-sided compromise and move ...Evangelicals toward Rome.

The Jesuits and their agents long ago infiltrated protestant and evangelical seminaries and churches to subvert them and have successfully done so, just as they have infiltrated and subverted our US Constitutional Government. As Geo W Bush, a loyal servant of papal Rome once said, To hell with the Constitution, or some such thing. This is how far they have succeeded in taking over America. We can see their same degree of success in subverting evangelicalism measured by the success they have had in seducing evangelicals into the Rome-ward bound ecumenical movement.

They have also been behind the economic downfall of this country. which is being replaced by the Papacy's Thomas Aquinas' economic philosophy and agenda...the very philosophy that Norman Geisler has come out of the closet in saying he is a LOVER of!

Norman Geisler is no true friend of evangelicals (or America), and he is no way a true evangelical. He is a 'hidden reef' operating behind his false front claim to be evangelical in order to deceive and subvert evangelicism. He knows it. It's time we know it too.

Anonymous said...

Bible Believer, keep standing for the truth and exposing the deceptions that are overtaking the churches. God has people who need to hear these things and will be grateful for it. Others will criticize, but that's between them and God. You are doing the right thing in exposing the wolves in order to warn the unwary and defend the faith. God bless you.

Bible Believer said...

I agree with the anon poster above who talks about Geisler being a "hidden reef". The sad thing, I kind of chose him at random and there are multiple others, serving that role in the evangelical church, and not just mainstream evangelicalism, but Calvary Chapel and many other places. A few others are mentioned in the blog entry, but the world is full of folks like who range from Van Impe who is quite adamant about his love of Rome preaching a "protestant purgatory" to the pseudo-intellectual types who fill the seminaries, filling heads with early church fathers galore [this is a common thread with many of these back to Rome types] instead of scripture. I see them in multiple areas such as Calvinism, the Emergent world, and even some moles wiggling into the "fundamentalist" world. The messages always match, Unity comes first, lowest common denominator Christianity, the use of complex scribe meanderings full of early church fathers and vain philosophies and praise for the Pope.


I believe the "counter-reformation" is in full swing. It never really ended, so you are correct about the would be Jesuit and other infiltrations. You are correct Anon [person mentioning hidden reef] that it is always about moving evangelicals towards Rome, sometimes this is done obvious and sometimes it is done in a subtle fashion. One thing I have stated before is believing even the lowest common denominator "Christianity" I see sold by the Grahams and Calvary Chapel is about selling the false idea that everyone who says the name "jesus" is a Christian. These types will fill websites, with announcements that Protestants have far more in common with Catholics then they ever thought possible and exhortations for everyone to work together on the "culture wars", this was really about what the Manhattan Declaration was all about [Im going to do an entry on that soon], make it all sound good, everyone join together, but its really about bringing evangelicals into the Roman Catholic ecumenical camp.

I believe most of the seminaries out there and even many of the Bible colleges and schools definitely have been infiltrated and "influenced". If anyone knows of one that has renounced Dominionism, isn't playing footsie with politicians, or rejects the one world ecumenical movement, please tell me about it, I would like to know.

As far as GWB and the politicians, all one has to do is look to see what is going on, GWB's brother has literally kneeled before the Pope and then we see the pictures of the Red Mass, and Catholic Cardinals commisserating with presidential candidates.
http://www.atissue.tv/20080928%20A%20Picture%20Speaks%20A%20Thousand%20Words.htm
{I don't know about this website haven't checked it out using it to show pictures}

I am glad you see through the Thomist stuff, [why should we trust any evangelicals who adhere to Roman Catholic philosophies?] and realize how that is being used in relation to the economic system. I posted on this blog about the Pope's encyclical, there lies well the 'immediate' future. Sadly Geisler is far from the only one who considers himself a Thomist.

If one wonders why the politicians seem to be acting against the interests of American people and why our economy seems to be going down the chute, examining some of these things is of interest.

I totally agree most of evangelicalism has been subverted. They worked on the mainline's first, we know those have been lost for years and then worked their way down.

Bible Believer said...

Thanks to the other anon poster, for your encouragement, I really appreciate it quite a bit! :)

Anonymous said...

The sell outs are disgusting. Rather than look objectively at a doctrine to see if it lines up with Scripture, they would rather defend it even when it doesn't if they can't stand to see their darling organization bad mouthed. They become respecters of persons. It is just such people that let the enemy into the door. Then they wonder what happened when it all goes down the toilet. I'll tell you what happened: when the Spirit sent discerning ones to warn, they threw stones at those who warned them, telling them they are "haters" or "totally paranoid". These are the types of folk who will expect to have many rewards for their "work" when all they'll find is their works burned to a crisp, though they themselves will be saved. It is really very sad. The real Anon. #1 who posted the very first comment up top, and not the other "Anon. #1".

Bible Believer said...

Hey last Anon, I agree with you. Actually examining the spiderweb and seeing how much celebrity rules and sychophancy to the powerful and "alphas" of the cliques, it has been horrifying to watch. You are right about the treatment of those who warn. Of course Jesus warned us about this in the Bible.

Bible Believer said...

You wrote a post called the SIN OF SCHISM.[as an ex-Catholic I remember reading and hearing many Catholic preachers and authors discuss it in the same exact way except of course the Pope part. Schism and heresy in the Catholic church are mentioned as some of the greatest evils, and some of those heretics, that were arrested the Inquisitions would be charged with JUST THAT!

If you truly believe there is no sin in leaving a church, why would you even mention those who persuade others in leaving a church in a thread entitled the "sin of schism"?

Doesn't this address "leaving a church"?

You wrote "The Ephesian church was warned that savage wolves would tear people away from the church"

as well as:

"But if someone splits a church by persuading members to join him in leaving that church, he is now guilty of the heinous sin of schism."

This all mentions leaving, so how does that make me a liar?

Bible Believer said...

more here:


Schism in itself, involves the leaving of a church. What frightens me, is how you seem to address individuals you see as causing strife and division, you talk about churches being torn to pieces, but do you not realize this is usually via false teachers in the pulpits, not those in the pews? The tone of that thread, is you seem to far more against dissenters in the pews rather then the ones creating havoc in the pulpits. Perhaps I am wrong, please share if that is not the case.

Those who are ex-Catholics are considered heretics as well as schismatics.

It is odd that an evangelical would use some of the language of Rome, to condemn those who would "persuade others to leave". How do you feel about that? is it always wrong? If I persuaded someone to leave a NAR or a false charismatic church, would you consider that a "sin of schism"?

Romans 16 does not excuse abiding by wolves or false doctrine, in fact the wolves themselves would be the ones creating the divisons and offenses. You wrote "There is not a single verse in the Bible where God tells you to tear the church to pieces." The sad thing here, is this seems to be more a verse against Christians who warn of error and stand against false things in the church, then the wolves and false preachers within the churches.

You repeat this again in a different way:

"But if someone splits a church by persuading members to join him in leaving that church, he is now guilty of the heinous sin of schism."

So is leaving a church or persuading others to leave or seeing one divided a great sin? I do not think it is. There are divisions that are based in sin and those that are based on truth. The Reformation was a division of Protestants from Rome. This is why I found your title there so odd, so "Catholic" in it's quality, "the sin of schism". My goodness.

Bible Believer said...

continued:

Many Christians are coming out of false churches, and basically from churches that have joined with the world system and the harlot, God Himself has commanded "Come out of her"

I really thought when I started warning about things happening in Calvary Chapel, that others would share in the concerns instead of the blind defense of wolves. I have prayed for some ears to open and for eyes to see. One thing this poster does not realize, I wanted Calvary Chapel to be a true church, my intentions towards it were good. But I could not ignore what I saw, read or heard and shove it under the carpet and ignore it.

What I got instead from many within Calvary Chapel with very few notable exceptions, was a blind defense of leaders and many that believed that I was to be maligned based alone on my differing "fundamentalist" beliefs regarding biblical separation and the world evangelical- ecumenical movement.

I would like this poster to write specifically what he believes I am deceived about. It's very sad, this is someone I hoped would be open to some of the warnings and who would explore the issues, instead of resorting to just telling ,me I am "depraved", and a "liar".

It is scary for someone to dismiss so many warnings out there with a wave of the hand, and thinking just shouting "evil suspicions" wipes away what is really happening.

I had hoped for better from you. For the rest, I want people to FACT CHECK,check the cites I post and rest. Here, this poster may disagree with my interpretation of his words, he may see schism as simply "church division" and "church infighting", when I see it representing far more and abused by those who want to preach a false unity. That may not be his intention, but it is what I got from what he wrote.

Division isn't always a bad thing.
Luk 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

What I would like to know, does this Calvary Chapel intern pastor consider me a "schismatic" too, like Rome?

I still find it odd language to use. Perhaps you should rethink that.

Thanks and God bless.

Bible Believer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bible Believer said...

Can we have an honest discussion without the "youre a bigot, hater etc", script?

You do not even know me, or I you, beyond a few exchanges on message boards and the like, so how can there even be any of the emotional investment for actual "hatred"? One odd thing about today's culture, it seems merely disagreeing with someone is enough to be told you "hate' them. Thankfully there are some people not of this ilk out there, but it's really growing.

If you agreed and believed with me, on the same standards of biblical separation and the world ecumenical evangelical movement, then there would be no debate here, would there? If we agreed about the "schism" issue, we wouldn't be debating either.

You would have responded along the lines of...'I am concerned too about pro-ecumenicalists" being invited as lecturers, or I pray that people wake up about Lausanne, etc, in response to the variety of topics I have posted on instead of the immediate defensive anger.

So please help me understand what you think I am misrepresenting when it comes to your beliefs? Would you at least admit the line we draw when it comes to ecumenism is different? I am guessing you are ok with Billy Graham and I saw you write today, it is ok to work with Catholics when it comes to abortion. You stated " I will work with Catholics to stop abortion." {I think Christians should stand against abortion but not join with a church that teaches a false gospel in doing so}. So obviously we do stand in different places when it comes to these matters. Do you think someone is automatically to be labled a "hater" for not sharing these viewpoints with you?

So please inform me on what you think my "misrepresentation" regarding "your beliefs" actually is.

Anonymous said...

It is very transparent when one begins to use the "hate" word. Working side by side with Catholics to stop abortion gives them credibility when they are the most odious W hore who uses the name of Christ to steal sheep. Shame, shame. Anon. #1

Bible Believer said...

I agree when people start using the "hate" word its usually game over. It's one of the scripts. I know on many message boards, the Bible Christian who stands for truth is viewed as the most odious creature on earth, by the surrounding compromisers. This is nothing new to me. Even here, he has not clearly defined what he considers to be my "misrepresentation".

Anonymous said...

What's with this?

News Alert = VES Annual Apologetics Conference hosted by CCCM


An apologetics conference was held at CCCM (3800 S. Fairview, Santa Ana, CA 92704), November 5 and November 6, 2010 as documented by:

http://www.veritasseminary.com/edu/

Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, pastored by Chuck Smith seems to be headed a different direction now that leadership is radically changing. This Veritaas conference does not seem to be something Pastor Chuck would support as he has always been very careful who allows to speak from his pulpit.

Those who love the Word of God and are concerned about the Bible coming under attack in the last days by apostate ideas, should be very concerned. While the board of CCCM was warned about the dangers this conference would pose to Bible believers, the conference went on and not a single statement was made to warn those who attended.

While UTT us not prepared to outline specifics, the following links will speak for themselves.
Pray for Chuck Smith and the board of CCCM.

WATCH THE FOLLOWING LINKS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f611LjTqNsg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekYEKm-Rtbo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9L35bUUj9c&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J05684R9bvE&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwRIOLbTBR4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zu0EgpftP4&NR=1

Anon. #1

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Oops, sorry! I didn't mean to do anything wrong!

Bible Believer said...

I have taken down a few posts, further argument with a particular someone is non-productive.

Now I understand why googling Calvary Chapel and "cult", brings up a lot of hits. {that have nothing to do with my posts]

I have no further comment on that particular matter.

Bible Believer said...

Anon #1

So you disagree with this conference? Now?

Please clarify.

I have not followed the controversy with Caner, and do not even know any of the details.

Bible Believer said...

I may have taken down an extra comment by accident, not sure, but apologize, please repost if you feel led.

Anonymous said...

No need as you may have seen where I got this info by now. I posted that info because I thought you may be interested in it. Sorry I didn't make myself clear! But Caner aside, things are certainly getting out of control there, and it seems that your suspicions are justified.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I believe Budge took them down after your mentioning that she used your screen name, which to give her the benefit of the doubt--as all we followers of Christ should do--I believe there is a perfectly understandable reason for her having slipped. As she was traveling from one site to another, where she had been using your screen name there, she simply forgot and used your name. In fact, since I myself was traveling from that to this site, when I saw your screen name I thought nothing of it for the very same reason. I passed over your name without it even dawning on me. It wasn't until your threat to report her that I had to backtrack to see that she did use your name. Was your use of her screen name a retaliation or a slip on your part? I think I'll give you the benefit of the doubt also, since you were understandably quite upset at seeing your screen name. Now I believe that she removed those posts because after you threatened to report her, and that would of course be your right, she realized what a big mistake she made, and moved to rectify that error. I don't believe that she had revealed your screen name purposely, although I do believe it would have been good to have apologized (not that she may not still do so). So for all of you out there reading this, you should also be apprised of ALL the facts, as well as leave room for the benefit of the doubt for everyone concerned. Anon. #1

Anonymous said...

Oh, and I might also add that one of the posts she removed was the one in which you used a name of a supposed associate of hers and yours. So to be fair, you are really the one who revealed a name to begin with, which would also reveal to all who she is to anyone who had known that person you mentioned. Therefore, all the posts she removed were all the posts in which names were revealed. Nothing devious there. You see, we all make mistakes don't we? Anon. #1

Anonymous said...

And another thing, I notice that you are continuing to use her screen name? Is this also an oversight? BTW, I would tone down your accusation of "liar", since that is merely a perception on your part based on your bias. It really adds nothing whatever to your credibility. If you want to refute what she has to say, you should do so in a logical and calm fashion. After all, isn't that part of the office upon which you intend to embark? Just a word of caution, Brother. Anon. #1

Anonymous said...

"Oh, and I might also add that one of the posts she removed was the one in which you used a name of a supposed associate of hers and yours. So to be fair, you are really the one who revealed a name to begin with, which would also reveal to all who she is to anyone who had known that person you mentioned. Therefore, all the posts she removed were all the posts in which names were revealed. Nothing devious there. You see, we all make mistakes don't we? Anon. #1 "

Nice try but she is the one who revealed my screen name not me. She only censored my comments pointing out her mistakes which she continues to perpetuate and therefore graduates into lies.

If she edits her post and removes the lie about what I said then I am good and that is all I ask but it isn't going to happen. She will continue to lie and censor me when I prove her a liar.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but I believe she removed the posts with names which were revealed in them, AFTER you threatened to report her. Please don't think I'm foolish enough to believe your slant on things when I clearly saw what occurred. Anon. #1

Anonymous said...

No she removed all of my posts, only one which had a name, a name of someone who has given me permission to use. Budge wanted to censor me because I pointed out a lie she made. Nothing more.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I just don't buy it. There really wasn't anything of substance which you said anyhow. She removed not just your posts where names were named, but also HER posts where she named names, including yours. Anon. #1

Anonymous said...

I stand corrected and I apologize, I notice that she did remove more than just the posts with names in them. However, I believe she did so in frustration after your threat. Up to that point, she had allowed your previous posts. Anon. #1

Anonymous said...

And as you continue to use her screen name, your other posts are likely to be excised as well. Anon. #1

Anonymous said...

I accept your apology.

Since my defense of what I said was removed I'll state it again. Her claim is this:

"On message boards, I saw Calvary Chapelists including one claiming to be an intern pastor [he very well could have been] posting against "schism" the same way a Catholic would [where the greatest sin is leaving a church"

I made that post but never made that claim. There is NO sin in leaving a church. The sin that was being spoken of are those whose sole purpose is to divide the church and pull people away with false accusations (1 Timothy 6:3-5). The person who is deceiving is the one who is the sinner NOT the person who leaves the church.

I explained this misrepresentation by her yet she insisted on censoring my explanations (of which there were three) and insisted on continuing the misrepresentation none the less which then crosses into willful misrepresentation which in other words is a lie. As we know a person who lies is called a liar.

If I can trust her to post the truth about what I said even AFTER I have corrected her then no one should trust anything she says without looking into it themselves.

Anonymous said...

No one should trust anything ANYONE says without checking. If one does, then one deserves to be deceived.

But I still believe that your posts were deleted as a result of your threat. Perhaps a bit more patience could have gone a long way rather than a threat. As I said, she may have simply slipped up, and you could have just politely asked her to remove your name. Then she reacted in equal frustration and resentment by deleting your posts. I really don't think it was anything more nefarious than that. I understand we all get into our flesh. None of us are perfect. But the both of you allowed frustration and resentment to get the best of you. Fleshly anger does not promote the righteousness of God nor brotherly kindness. You both have something valuable to bring to the table, and that valuable thing was given you both by CHRIST and it is HIS talent that you are to invest. Anon. #1

Anonymous said...

Look, all the training and the learning in the world can't teach us to love one another. That can only come from Him who is Love Himself, and without that, we are nothing. When we leave Love behind, we have left Him behind--we have turned from Him. Anon. #1

Anonymous said...

There is a quiet power in these words:

14Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.

15Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.

16Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.

17Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

18If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

20Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

21Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

From Rom. 12

Anonymous said...

Bible Beliebver has repeatedly asked the disgruntled poster to clarify himself by answering certain questions that would help her understand where he is coming from, and to tell her exactly where she might have misunderstood him. He still hasn't responded to any of her requests for clarification, yet he continues to hurl the liar liar accusation at her. Something's missing here.

Anonymous said...

Actually, he has responded. BB has removed his posts as a result of something that occurred between them. If you read up further, I am discussing this with him. Anon. #1

Bible Believer said...

"Bible Beliebver has repeatedly asked the disgruntled poster to clarify himself by answering certain questions that would help her understand where he is coming from, and to tell her exactly where she might have misunderstood him. He still hasn't responded to any of her requests for clarification, yet he continues to hurl the liar liar accusation at her. Something's missing here."


Thank you.

He wrote about sin of schism, and mentioned those who persuaded others to leave churches.

"Schism" is linked to leaving churches.

He can argue all this all he wants, and seek to do the discredit thing, I removed the posts because he was threatening to report me to blogspot. [I'm thinking in a possible attempt to get it taken down and censor me]

This is how cults operate.

I removed his name, and the exchange with the threat to report the blog. I did slip up using his name, but one response [I thought it was him] was mentioning an old poster at CR, and weird stuff about him "knowing me for years"

Some of us are surmising who that could be.
He is doing the game of, I would have to bascially "agree" with him to not be charged with being a liar.

I still would like this point answered from one of those posts I took down:

"Would you at least admit the line we draw when it comes to ecumenism is different? I am guessing you are ok with Billy Graham and I saw you write today, it is ok to work with Catholics when it comes to abortion. You stated " I will work with Catholics to stop abortion." {I think Christians should stand against abortion but not join with a church that teaches a false gospel in doing so}. So obviously we do stand in different places when it comes to these matters. Do you think someone is automatically to be labled a "hater" for not sharing these viewpoints with you? So please inform me on what you think my "misrepresentation" regarding "your beliefs" actually is."

Bible Believer said...

"I might also add that one of the posts she removed was the one in which you used a name of a supposed associate of hers and yours. So to be fair, you are really the one who revealed a name to begin with, which would also reveal to all who she is to anyone who had known that person you mentioned."

Yes this was done and one of the reasons the I slipped up in using his name. But it is odd, hasn't he used my other screen name here? Others from the opposite side have, I guess Ill have to go check. Mentioning odd stuff about that past associate, and claiming "he has known me for years" was weird. There is a certain poster that could lay claim to that, I won't say the name here, but that makes things even more disturbing. This person hasnt even been involved in our discussions, which makes things even stranger.

Thanks for your posts. Some will go all out to silence Christians warning about heavy issues. He really has no case with blogspot. Disagreeing with a statement or interpreting a religious concept in a different way, does not fulfill any countries definition of defamation or slander. It also does not fulfill the definition of a lie. My beliefs are sincere, including about what schism means biblically or how the term is abused by those who push false unity.

Bible Believer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bible Believer said...

"No she removed all of my posts, only one which had a name, a name of someone who has given me permission to use. Budge wanted to censor me because I pointed out a lie she made. Nothing more."

Why are outside parties being dragged into all this? Leave other people out it [especially posters I have not had contact with in over a year if not more!]

I have had to take down several of this comment? Is this what *Christian* conversation has devolved into; a form of "liar liar pants on fire?"

"Warning to Readers: The author of this site is a known liar and when confronted she will censor your evidence of said lie. Reader beware and research for yourself anything posted on this site. It is likely taken out of context or an outright lie as the author did to me."

Sad someone has to sink to this level.

He still hasn't clarified what I am lying about.

Bible Believer said...

Oh EVERYONE RESEARCH EVERYTHING you READ ON MY WEBSITE.

I will never discourage that.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1 said:

"Actually, he has responded. BB has removed his posts as a result of something that occurred between them. If you read up further, I am discussing this with him. Anon. #1 "

Thanks for the charity. I have tried on several occasions to explain but all the previous posts were deleted that contained the explanations (yes patience is something I need to learn again it seams). I believe the one I provided at 5:42pm explains my view clearly on what I believe and what that post in question meant.

Why the discussion here is heated is that it poured over from the board in question.

In regard to using her screen name, her name is not the one being misrepresented. Mine is. I don't want my name associated with a misrepresentation. If it was an accurate one I wouldn't have an issue with it. Hope that makes sense.

Anonymous said...

BB Said:

"Mentioning odd stuff about that past associate, and claiming "he has known me for years" was weird. There is a certain poster that could lay claim to that, I won't say the name here, but that makes things even more disturbing. This person hasnt even been involved in our discussions, which makes things even stranger."

I have known you for a long time. I remember you from the FCFC days. I remember you from CR. You knew me by another screen name at that time before we migrated to Yuku. Once on yuku I came up with a better screen name.

Not sure who you are thinking of though... :) I assure you I've been involved in this conversation from the beginning.

I mentioned our mutual friend for one reason, so you know that when I say I've known you for years you have some background on it. Nothing more.

Bible Believer said...

Why don't you just say who you are instead of the game playing? Mutual friend? I barely know the person you mentioned. They were nice, but we were not close and have no contact anymore.

There were lots of occultists and others on CR, I still remember one who claimed to be an Anglican priest, and seemed to form a new identity every other month. Not saying you are them or an occultist or this person, but I have no idea, who you are. The fact you are playing these games on here, is scary and you are not doing any favors for your reputation leaving the liar comment, [see quoted above by me] posted over 60 times on this blog. I stopped counting. Leaving the liar comment [I posted it above over 60 times] on my blog, speaks for itself. I'll let others muse over that one for a while and what it means.

Bible Believer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bible Believer said...

In regard to using her screen name, her name is not the one being misrepresented. Mine is. I don't want my name associated with a misrepresentation."

That's not fair, or even consistent. Why demand others do not use your screenname while you freely use others?

Anyhow I don't care who you are. Just go away, this is my last response except to erase your posts.

Anonymous said...

You are welcome. Yes, your concern makes sense, and I also know that the heat came over from another board. I saw what was occurring there, and you said some unfair things over there to another poster. That is why I would caution a bit more patience from all parties. No one is ever convinced by our emotions getting the best of us. Look, when we are pruned it is never easy, but we should be humble enough to realize that perhaps it is the Lord. David was not at fault when the man from Benjamin cried out and threw stones at him. But you surely remember what David said when his aid wanted to take off his head: Perhaps the Lord has sent him. Who are we to say otherwise? If the Lord sees fit, He shall avenge me. Leave him be.

Whenever these things happen, we should be humble enough to really examine things without bias. We should fall on our knees to seek out the Lord to show us if there is truly anything we should purge. We are never beyond pruning, for pruning is what really brings forth more fruit. If we do not receive His rebukes, then we shall not bear the fruit He desires. It's not as if He needs US to bear the fruit, but He is treating us as FRIENDS and not servants by SHARING the opportunity to bear fruit WITH Him. So be humble enough to recognize that when someone throws stones, it may be a true cause, and if not, then the vengeance belongs to Him. If you seek the office which you are pursuing, and you do not learn this first, you shall fall for pride. Do not allow this to happen. If you allow yourself to be pruned, then you shall indeed bear much fruit. After all, isn't that why you want this office--for Him, and not for yourself? Be careful that those who give you this office become not your masters, for then you will owe them and you shall be serving TWO masters. It is better to be lowly, then to sit with princes in pride. I offer this with all my heart to you. So please do not take it offensively. Anon. #1

Anonymous said...

To Anon 1 and BB:

I was convicted last night and this verse was brought to my attention.

For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. 1 Corinthians 1:11

I had to repent last night to God and I will apologize for my behavior here to all of you.

I will give one last explanation of the "Sin of Scism" post. That post speaks specifically about those that Jude speaks of in verses 12 and 13.

"These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever. "

It speaks of those who are like hidden reefs in calm waters. The waters look good, but this person is a hidden reef just waiting for a believer in a church to hit it. This then causes a shipwreck. These people are rain clouds without any rain, they look good on the outside but there is nothing on the inside.

Sometimes these people are more blatant and join churches with the intention of finding something wrong and causing division and strife.

The sin is on the side of those who are the reefs lurking under the waters, those who are the dividers of the Body and cause people to leave.

I hope this provides a clear understanding of my position and shows how what is represented in the post is indeed misrepresenting my belief.

With that I bid you all farewell and may the Lord bless you.

Anonymous said...

Well, perhaps you shall return, Brother, so I will respond anyway. I am keeping you in my prayers. I went to battle for you last night. I have to admit that my heart was very pained on your behalf as the Love of Christ for you washed over me. I commend you for your repentance, Brother.

I understand your position as you stated it in regards to your example in Jude. However, I would hope that you can perhaps see that Jude was speaking of men who brought in destructive heresies--heresies which denied the Gospel which caused many to fall away from Christ (schism). In the context of his time, this was a direct reference to the circumcision Jews trying to bring in the works of the Law and condemning those believing Gentiles not under the Law as well as those Jews--such as Paul--who ate with such Gentiles--in other words, who fellowshipped with them. To keep the gravity of Jude's message and the proper content, I do not believe that he was simply referring to people who enter a congregation and attempt to find fault with it. These blasphemers were first and foremost denying Christ and His Gospel, and, yes, they were finding fault, but the fault they perceived was that they were not under the Law. In other words, they preached another "gospel" which necessitated works in order to be saved. I believe that if we take this message out of its context, we are doing both the message and the hearers of it a disservice. I do not believe that we should interpret these writings according to simple "fault finding". Though that is a legitimate concern, this writing should not be watered down to suit that particular problem. The "hidden reefs" were FALSE PROPHETS OR TEACHERS, who brought in destructive heresies which were causing people to FALL AWAY from the Gospel. Jude's examples were Cain who began the pagan mystery cult in the east, Balaam who taught the doctrine of eating sacrifices of and for the dead, and Korah who wanted to be the high priest enabling him to enter into the Holy of Holies. Cain turned people away from the Tree of Life--the Word of God--to the "East" in the worship of the creature, and whose religion so infested the earth, that God brought the flood upon the ungodly. Balaam, who although he knew that Israel was blessed, defied the Almighty One by offering a lying doctrine for the purpose of getting the Almighty One to destroy them--as if He could be manipulated as a Baal, and as if He would turn back from His Covenant. Korah, who defied the Everlasting One by coveting that office to which he was not appointed, and not being satisfied with the honor laid upon his family in the service of the Tabernacle. Korah wasn't satisfied until he could enter behind that veil, and if he had to defy the Everlasting One, then that is what he did, and in doing so, gathered princes and elders in an attempt to give him credibility. APOSTASY is the "schism" which is meant Biblically. To be in schism is to have fallen from CHRIST, and falling from Christ, one is fallen from His body as well. In other words, one is not truly a believer, but a reprobate.

The irony of this is that BB's intent is to address the heresies, not to bring in heresy. Though BB does shoot from the hip at times, this doesn't mean that she is not justified in her concern. Rather than being so concerned with discrediting BB, perhaps the better approach would be to be humble enough to look carefully at our familiar surroundings in which we have made ourselves comfortable and allow ourselves to see those surroundings through the eyes of Christ and be open to His Spirit of correction. Give it all as a sacrifice upon His altar, being willing to let Him do the pruning, no matter how painful that may be--even if it means that you yourself have to suffer loss. This last point is very important. We should really examine our defensiveness to see if it perhaps is not borne of clinging to our goals, even IF our surroundings ARE without condemnation. Anon. #1

Anonymous said...

Well, perhaps you shall return, Brother, so I will respond anyway. I am keeping you in my prayers. I went to battle for you last night. I have to admit that my heart was very pained on your behalf as the Love of Christ for you washed over me. I commend you for your repentance, Brother.

I understand your position as you stated it in regards to your example in Jude. However, I would hope that you can perhaps see that Jude was speaking of men who brought in destructive heresies--heresies which denied the Gospel which caused many to fall away from Christ (schism). In the context of his time, this was a direct reference to the circumcision Jews trying to bring in the works of the Law and condemning those believing Gentiles not under the Law as well as those Jews--such as Paul--who ate with such Gentiles--in other words, who fellowshipped with them. To keep the gravity of Jude's message and the proper content, I do not believe that he was simply referring to people who enter a congregation and attempt to find fault with it. These blasphemers were first and foremost denying Christ and His Gospel, and, yes, they were finding fault, but the fault they perceived was that they were not under the Law. In other words, they preached another "gospel" which necessitated works in order to be saved. I believe that if we take this message out of its context, we are doing both the message and the hearers of it a disservice. I do not believe that we should interpret these writings according to simple "fault finding". Though that is a legitimate concern, this writing should not be watered down to suit that particular problem. The "hidden reefs" were FALSE PROPHETS OR TEACHERS, who brought in destructive heresies which were causing people to FALL AWAY from the Gospel. Jude's examples were Cain who began the pagan mystery cult in the east, Balaam who taught the doctrine of eating sacrifices of and for the dead, and Korah who wanted to be the high priest enabling him to enter into the Holy of Holies. Cain turned people away from the Tree of Life--the Word of God--to the "East" in the worship of the creature, and whose religion so infested the earth, that God brought the flood upon the ungodly. Balaam, who although he knew that Israel was blessed, defied the Almighty One by offering a lying doctrine for the purpose of getting the Almighty One to destroy them--as if He could be manipulated as a Baal, and as if He would turn back from His Covenant. Korah, who defied the Everlasting One by coveting that office to which he was not appointed, and not being satisfied with the honor laid upon his family in the service of the Tabernacle. Korah wasn't satisfied until he could enter behind that veil, and if he had to defy the Everlasting One, then that is what he did, and in doing so, gathered princes and elders in an attempt to give him credibility. APOSTASY is the "schism" which is meant Biblically. To be in schism is to have fallen from CHRIST, and falling from Christ, one is fallen from His body as well. In other words, one is not truly a believer, but a reprobate.

The irony of this is that BB's intent is to address the heresies, not to bring in heresy. Though BB does shoot from the hip at times, this doesn't mean that she is not justified in her concern. Rather than being so concerned with discrediting BB, perhaps the better approach would be to be humble enough to look carefully at our familiar surroundings in which we have made ourselves comfortable and allow ourselves to see those surroundings through the eyes of Christ and be open to His Spirit of correction. Give it all as a sacrifice upon His altar, being willing to let Him do the pruning, no matter how painful that may be--even if it means that you yourself have to suffer loss. This last point is very important. We should really examine our defensiveness to see if it perhaps is not borne of clinging to our goals, even IF our surroundings ARE without condemnation. Anon. #1

Anonymous said...

Wow, sorry for the double post! I got a message that it wasn't accepting the URL, so I tried it again. Actually, I think I may have done it twice more. Sorry! Anon. #1

Roy Allen said...

All these in this list are available for free download in PDF format.
1. 50 million protestants killed by:_David A Plaisted, 2006, 84pp.
2. a. Americans Warned of Jesuitism or b. The Jesuits Unveiled by John Claudius Pitrat 1855, 190pp.
3. The Secret History of the Jesuits by Edmond Paris 1975, 197pp.
4. The Popes of Rome by Dr. Ronald Cooke 1999, 48pp.
5. Washington In THE LAP OF ROME by Justin D. Fulton, D.D., 1888, 286pp

I think I have some more pdfs also.