Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Subtle Deception When It Comes To Interfaith Dialogue for Evangelicals

Proselytizing in a Multi-Faith World

I always knew apostate evangelicals would follow the lead of Rome for the whole one world religion "interfaith dialogue" quest. It doesn't surprise me this now being directly advanced, such as in the article linked above by Ed Stetzer in Christianity Today. Don't let the 'we want to convert you' supposed "anti pluralism" claims fool you. The Pope and his men claim that too, after all they want to sell the Catholic church [Dominus Iesus even states the RCC is the one true church!] to whoever they can as they participate in one world religion pow-wows as well. To be honest, this is the same message, heard from the Pope and Cardinal Arinze on down as Stetzer writes:

For years, many people of various faiths have promoted "interfaith dialogue" in order to discover common ground and work together for humanity's sake. That sounds good, until we start digging below the surface. Many of those involved in interfaith dialogue approach it as if there are no fundamental distinctions or differences between them.

OK, Sounds nice on the surface, but where does the Bible say that false religions are to seek a common ground or "work together" Tower of Babel Style for "Humanity's sake"? He does point out some of the different beliefs, OK, that's good...but his response is still one that holds to the globalist one world religion vision. Well no surprises there, this is Christianity Today, after all. He continues...

In the spirit of multi-faith dialogue, I would like to propose four foundational commitments that the followers of the world's religions could agree to make. We commit to do the following: Let each religion speak for itself. Talk with and about individuals, not generic "faiths." Respect the sincerely held beliefs of people of other religions. Grant each person the freedom to make his or her faith decisions.
One question I hate is "who" are people "committing" too? Whose making these agreements? Whose making them necessary? Oh the globalists of course. When he talks about "Let Each Religion Speak for Itself"...that seems to just be more political correctness formulas. Where one has to be careful not to offend and water down truth to keep listeners happy! He speaks of a Hindu who managed to break the political correctness rules, regarding different religious bans of eating pork and beef between the Muslim and Hindu religion. I found the part interesting too where he says go to the source, read the Talmud to understand Judaism and visit a synagogue. OK, I can see reading the literature of other religions to "understand" what they believe but that said, in my years of dealing with Catholic apologists who claimed "we do not worship Mary", getting truth "about a false religion" from the followers of it, isn't always an automatic. False religious literature contains lies. With the Talmud that brought Babylonian teachings to Jews who rejected Jesus Christ, reading a false book, and buying into it, is not the way to go. Then there is the part "Respect Other Religions". Sorry I do not. I can love and care about people in false religions hoping they come to the truth but do not respect false religions or the beliefs whatsoever. Here you see the watering right down...when one "respects" false beliefs they are going to not make as strong stands against them. I have read scads of Catholic interfaith literature that insists that false religion beliefs should be "respected", I can't figure that one out. I understand preaching the gospel in love and understanding the worth of fellow human beings, but why should people "respect" false beliefs that lead people to hell? Freedom is important, but we know that one won't be given to Christians who hold to a biblical view. He then points out the violent extremists,but those examples are used to help herd people into "respecting" false religions and beliefs lest they be herded into the 'violent" 'fundamentalist" camp. Christians are instructed in the Bible how to treat unbelievers, and those who reject the Bible and embrace violence are of the spirit of Satan. We do not need to water down and embrace false religions or respect false belief, to treat people with Christian love. He goes on to give a place to witnessing, and that is a good thing as well stating: "Sharing with others the way to right belief is not oppression but in fact an active demonstration of love and concern." and also says Freedom is important referring to Luke Chapter 9 where Jesus rebukes the apostles that want to call down fire on unbelievers. "Freedom of conscience" is something many can agree on too, but here is the problem, this is more of this religions come together lie we have been sold. Remember when I wrote about "unity in diversity"? Don't let this article fool you, the "differences" in the one world religion camp are allowed between the religions, the whole message is 'to come together". In other words, they will claim "freedom of conscience" and that a Christian can speak about "christ". Just so people know the author of this article was a participant in the Global Faith Forum which I blogged about here and here. Interfaith dialogue among evangelicals is growing, and now following the example of the more liberal World Council of Church members and the Roman Catholic church. There is even a journal now for Evangelicals: Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue [crucifix graphics and all] but this is just one group of many others advancing the evangelical interfaith dialogue cause.

They are getting subtle in their deceptions to woo in the evangelicals. They are selling interfaith dialogue under the formula, that one supposedly is not giving up what they are [in standing for being a Christian] by participating in interfaith groups or what Stetzer refers to as "multi-faith" gatherings. One thing with the interfaith dialogue salesmen, remember Stetzer is not just the only one denying out and out pluralism and mixing religions. He writes:
We did not think we were worshiping the same God or gods, and we were not there under the pretense that we held the same beliefs. In other words, our goal was not merging faiths, combining beliefs, or even interfaith partnership.
Even the Catholic church makes the same claims. Cardinal Arinze who was one Cardinal slated to be in position to be a Pope before Ratzinger was elected even stated this: "“Pluralism does not mean a supermarket where any religious tradition is just as valid as any other,” he said. “It is most important to be rooted in one's own faith and respectfully dialogue with others to follow the will of God.” But honestly what does it matter? The end goal is unity between DIFFERENT religions [unity in diversity], not one giant mega-religion of a mixing bowel of beliefs, this is something that trips many people up and this is one way they get Christians to sign on.

2Cr 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel.