|
"Take
Heed" Ministries
|
|
Cecil Andrews, PO BOX 13, Ballynahinch, BT24 8AL, Northern Ireland. Telephone/Fax 028 9756 5511. E-MAIL - takeheed@aol.com WEBSITE - http://www.takeheed.net |
|
NEWS
FROM THE FRONT
|
MARCH 2004
"Be not afraid or dismayed by reason of this great multitude for the battle is not yours but God's" (2nd Chronicles 20v15)
Dear praying friends,
Another year is well under
way and as I write this letter many topics have already been addressed and my
faithful Internet webmaster has been working overtime in posting a wide range
of articles to the ministry web site. Many of these articles do appear in NEWS
FROM THE FRONT or as enclosures as in this case with ‘Earning The Right’
by Willie Cowan. I would ask for specific prayer for the ministry
web site that the Lord will continue to use it to warn, inform and help people.
Just this morning I received an email, which said,
‘I am glad to see you have a
very active ministry. It is good for us in the USA to realise we did not invent
evangelism. It seems you have a VERY full and diverse ministry. I hope if you
are ever on the west coast you will give me fair warning. I live near Seattle.
God bless your work. It is the work of evangelists and faithful Christians that
showed me the Jesus in the Scripture after years of being in bondage to
Watchtower teachings and thought. Today was my first day of teaching Sunday
School and I feel so blessed that I escaped from where I was to find Jesus and
now am able to share that with others in diverse ways. I hope you will keep my
mum JD in your prayers; she is still a Jehovah’s Witness. In Christ’s love C
It is both encouraging and
yet humbling to receive messages such as this – please pray for C in her
service for the Master and pray also for the salvation of her mum JD.
CECIL ANDREWS
The
following letter was sent to the Belfast Telegraph on 22 December 2003
Dear editor,
In his Christmas message, the current Presbyterian Moderator, Rev Ivan McKay,
reportedly [Belfast Newsletter 20 December] said "The celebration of
Christmas is of the greatest gift ever given. God is the giver. He packaged the
gift in the form of a baby...To celebrate Christmas only as the birth of a baby
is to celebrate in foolishness. It is essential to look further - to see the
baby who became a boy, who became a man, who was crucified, who was raised from
the dead, who returned to heaven and will return as judge of heaven and earth.
My prayer is that throughout Ireland - north and south - we will open the
package and examine the gift. God gave this gift to deal with the sins of the
world that 'whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting
life'".
In his 'Thought for the
weekend' [20 December] Newtownards Presbyterian minister Rev Allen
Sleith recounts an incident where a colleague on visitation passed a
comment about how Christmas decorations enhanced the appearance and atmosphere
of a room and another resident commented 'that decorations stood for nothing,
that Christmas was now a commercial racket and that the real meaning was about
Jesus who came to die on the cross for our sins'.
Did Rev Sleith welcome this
'unpackaging of God's gift' as exhorted by his colleague and moderator, Rev
McKay? Whilst acknowledging the correctness of what the lady said, Rev Sleith
added "to make that the only or predominant note of the church's
message is to end up playing a limited tune which people will turn a deaf ear
to...I'm not sure which extreme swing of the pendulum I find more tiresome and
predictable: the commercial trappings that most of us have now bought into or
the knee-jerk moralism of way too many Christians".
I think Rev Sleith should
consider afresh the life and ministry of the apostle Paul who, in words that
echo the Christmas message of Rev McKay, "determined not to know anything
among you save Jesus Christ and him crucified" [1 Corinthians 2:2] and if
as Mr Sleith says this is a message that 'people will turn a deaf ear to'
let him remember that Paul also said "For the preaching of the cross is to
them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of
God"
[1 Corinthians 1:18].
The Christmas message and the
Church's message are one and the same "Christ Jesus came into this world
to save sinners". This is certainly not 'knee-jerk moralism' but
rather "a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation"
[1 Timothy 1:15].
Cecil Andrews - 'Take Heed' Ministries – Ballynahinch
Shortly after a copy of this letter was posted to our Internet web site in early January I received an email from a sister in Christ who was concerned that I appeared to be promoting the celebration of Christmas. With her permission this is part of what she wrote –
‘Have just been looking in your
website, some very good articles, but I am at a loss to understand the title of
the above subject…I cannot understand how Christ himself can be in
"Christ-mas" when it is nothing but a…pagan festival...the Apostles
and early church certainly never celebrated it, and most important is the fact
that nowhere in the Word of God are we told to celebrate it. The only two
ordinances are baptism and the Lord's Supper. My husband and I have not
celebrated this festival for some 20 years, since we saw the truth of it… The
world loves this festival, and all its gluttony, but they hate the Lord's Day
and true Christians. Are we not told to be separate and come out from
among them? Surely the original source of this pagan festival should be
sufficient to keep us separate from it…would be so pleased to have your
comments’
The following is part of what I wrote in reply –
‘Thank you for your email and
comments on the article 'Unpackaging the Christ of Christmas'. Let me begin by
saying that I agree fully with your observations on the pagan festival known as
'Christmas' and my article was not intended as an endorsement of it…What
the article was intended to do was to highlight what the Bible teaches about
the 'saving mission' of the Incarnate Christ and how a newspaper columnist [in
this case an ordained Presbyterian minister] had basically dismissed those who
proclaim this 'saving mission' as being guilty of 'knee-jerk moralism'. I was
in effect warning people to 'Take Heed' where this particular minister is
concerned. To do that I highlighted [1] the 'gospel truth' of the words of the
present Moderator of the Presbyterian Church, Ivan McKay when he said…Mr
McKay was not seeking to focus upon the celebration of 'Christmas' but rather
to focus upon the 'saving mission' of the Incarnate Christ…then by way of
contrast I highlighted [2] the dismissal of this unpackaging of the 'saving
mission' of the Incarnate Christ by his ministerial Presbyterian colleague
Allen Sleith as being 'knee-jerk moralism' when he quoted the words of a
believer who stated…I rejected this description of 'knee-jerk moralism' by Mr
Sleith and identified what this believing lady had said as being in effect the
"faithful saying...worthy of all acceptation" of 1 Timothy 1:15 of
how "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners". I hope this
explains what my intentions were.
Alister McGrath and The Catholic Catechism
At the beginning of the New Year I received an inquiry asking if I was
familiar with the beliefs of Alister McGrath. The inquirer had listened
to Mr McGrath on local radio and had been disturbed by some of the opinions
expressed by him. I did recall that ‘on file’ I had a copy of an article Mr
McGrath had written some years ago and so I unearthed it. This, my own article,
has been prompted by what I read in Mr McGrath’s article which was published in
December 1994 in what would be viewed by some as a ‘New
Evangelical’ periodical called ‘Christianity Today’. Mr
McGrath’s article was entitled –
Before dealing with the substance of Mr McGrath’s article let me give
some background information on him that I gleaned from the Internet.
Alister McGrath was born in
Belfast, Northern Ireland, on 23 January 1953. He studied at the Methodist
College, Belfast, majoring in mathematics, physics and chemistry. He was
elected to an open major scholarship at Wadham College, Oxford University, to
study chemistry from October 1971. He gained first class honours in chemistry
in June 1975…In December 1977, he was awarded an Oxford D.Phil. for his
research in the natural sciences, and gained first class honours in Theology in
June 1978. McGrath then left Oxford to work at Cambridge University, where he
held the Naden Studentship in Divinity at St John's College, Cambridge
(1978-80). He also studied for ordination into the Church of England at
Westcott House, Cambridge. In September 1980, he was ordained deacon, and began
work as a curate at St Leonard's Parish Church, Wollaton, Nottingham…In 1983,
he was appointed lecturer in Christian doctrine and ethics at Wycliffe
Hall, Oxford, and a member of the Oxford University Faculty of Theology… McGrath
was elected University Research Lecturer in Theology at Oxford University
in 1993, and also served as research professor of theology at Regent
College, Vancouver, from 1993-9. In 1995, he was elected Principal of
Wycliffe Hall, and in 1999, was awarded a personal chair in theology at Oxford
University, with the title of "Professor of Historical Theology". He
was awarded an Oxford Doctorate of Divinity in 2001 for his research on
historical and systematic theology.
You will note that I have highlighted the reference
to his work with Regent College, Vancouver and my reason for doing so is
to draw attention to the link between Mr McGrath and his fellow Anglican J I
Packer, who again according to the Internet ‘In 1979, after
teaching and preaching for 27 years in England, he became Professor of
Systematic and Historical Theology at Regent College…In 1996 he became Board of
Governors’ Professor of Theology’. Mr Packer in
1994 endorsed the first ‘Evangelicals and Catholics Together’ document
and a few years later was flown to Ireland to launch the ‘Evangelicals
and Catholics Together in Ireland’ booklet which also carried this
wording on its front cover
‘A call to CHRISTIANS in Ireland, Protestant, Roman
Catholic, Pentecostal, New Church to build friendships AS DISCIPLES OF JESUS
CHRIST that we may more clearly witness to Him, our only Saviour and Lord’.
I have mentioned
this connection with Mr Packer to show the type of ‘Anglican Evangelical’ that
Mr McGrath would appear quite clearly and comfortably to identify with. Mr
McGrath has written a biography of J I Packer and has co-operated with him in
authoring a number of Biblical commentaries. What I found disturbing in Mr
McGrath’s article were statements that could be classified as either ‘a
subtle half truth’ or ‘an
obvious untruth’. Whether this was unintentional or deliberate only Mr
McGrath himself knows. Let me address ‘a subtle half truth’. Mr McGrath wrote
‘Encouragingly the catechism is unequivocal in its
endorsement of the leading themes of traditional orthodox Christian
doctrine…For example, Holy Scripture is unequivocally recognised as the
inspired Word of God’.
Mr McGrath then
goes on to cite paragraph 104 and part of paragraph 105 to back up this
assertion. However when you read paragraph 97 of this same
Catholic Catechism you find this statement – ‘Sacred Tradition AND Sacred
Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God’. In the
light of this paragraph what Mr McGrath has written here is seen to be
only ‘a subtle half truth’ because
he should really have written
‘Holy Scripture is
unequivocally recognised as PART OF the inspired Word of God’. Later in his article Mr McGrath states that ‘The catechism
affirms the role of an unwritten or oral tradition in addition to Scripture’. This I believe
serves to portray a downplayed and misleading view of how Rome regards ‘tradition’ – for
Rome, ‘tradition’ is not simply ‘in addition to Scripture’, for Rome
‘tradition’ is ‘part and
parcel’ of ‘the inspired Word of God’.
The words of R B Kuiper, a theologian from an earlier
age, seem rather appropriate as a closing thought on this particular matter. He
wrote – ‘In his striving to
destroy the foundation of the faith of God’s saints, namely God’s excellent
Word, the great deceiver often employs subtle devices. The Roman Catholic
Church has always confessed the Bible to be the infallible Word of God. In
these days of rapprochement of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism that fact is
receiving much emphasis. However, Rome has always denied, and still keeps
denying, the sufficiency of the Bible as the Word of God. It teaches that
there are two infallibles: the Bible and the Church. And so it holds
tenaciously to certain teachings which, although not found in the Bible, have
the backing of tradition. Among them are the doctrine of purgatory, the
doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary by her mother Anna,
and, since November 1, 1950, the doctrine of the assumption of Mary into
heaven…So corrupt is human nature that he who today places something else on a
par with the Bible is practically certain to exalt that other thing above the
Bible tomorrow. And so it is not strange that many traditions of the Roman Catholic Church
contradict the Bible’. [‘The Bible Tells Us So’ pages 21-22; published in 1968]
As another ‘subtle half truth’ I would cite
this statement by Mr McGrath
‘The extensive use of Scripture, especially in the section
of the catechism dealing with the profession of baptismal faith [Comment: This section is devoted to promoting the false
doctrine of ‘baptismal regeneration], reinforces this impression of a church that takes
Scripture seriously’.
Well, to use Mr
McGrath’s own terminology, is he here trying to give the ‘impression’ that
here we have a Roman Catholic Church being directed and guided by the
Scriptures alone. It sounds very like it to those not familiar with the Roman
system. Paragraph 100 of the Catechism states clearly where the
ultimate authority in the Roman system resides – ‘The task of
interpreting the Word of God
[remember that is both
Scripture and tradition] authentically has been entrusted SOLELY to the
Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion
with him’. To correct this ‘subtle half truth’ Mr McGrath
should really write ‘The extensive use of Scripture… reinforces this impression
of a church that takes Scripture seriously AS AUTHENTICALLY INTERPRETED BY THE
MAGISTERIUM, THAT IS, THE POPE AND THE BISHOPS IN COMMUNION WITH HIM’. We come now to what is both
‘a subtle half truth’ and ‘an obvious untruth’. Mr
McGrath wrote –
‘The Pelagian heresy – the view that we are justified on the
basis of our good works rather than by the grace of God – is dismissed. Our
justification comes from the grace of God…This is a particularly important
point in view of the persistent tendency of some Protestant critics of the
Roman Catholic Church who charge it with teaching justification by works. Roman
Catholicism from the Council of Trent onwards has unequivocally rejected this
doctrine…some evangelicals continue to insist that the Roman Catholic
Church officially teaches justification by works, this is not true
Why do I
classify this firstly as ‘a subtle half truth’? Simply because in
Roman Catholicism there is an initial ‘justification’ [supposedly
in baptism – Paragraph 1266: ‘The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptised
sanctifying grace and the grace of JUSTIFICATION’ and Rome does teach
that the grounds of this JUSTIFICATION is the work of Christ - Paragraph
1992: ‘Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of
Christ…Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith].
However, that is not the end of the story. This JUSTIFICATION needs
to be both ‘preserved’ and ‘increased’. And how is
that done? Well that is where Mr McGrath’s ‘obvious untruth’ surfaces,
as the following official Roman Catholic ‘Imprimatur approved’
statements will clearly show.
1.
COUNCIL
OF TRENT: SESSION 6 ON JUSTIFICATION: CANON 24: If anyone says that the justice received is not
PRESERVED and also not INCREASED before God THROUGH GOOD WORKS, but that those
works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the
cause of ITS INCREASE, let him be anathema.
2.
THE
MOST REV. DR. JAMES BUTLER’S CATECHISM –– PAGE 26: QUESTION 7: Are we justified by faith alone without good works? Answer:
NO!
3.
A
CATECHISM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE – PAGE 22: QUESTION 135: Will faith alone save us? Answer: Faith alone
will not save us without good works.
4.
VATICAN
2: VOLUME 1: PAGE 68:
‘From the most ancient times in the Church GOOD WORKS WERE ALSO OFFERED TO GOD
FOR THE SALVATION OF SINNERS particularly the works which human weakness finds
hard. Because the SUFFERINGS OF THE MARTYRS of the faith and for God’s law were
thought to be very valuable, penitents used to turn to the martyrs TO BE HELPED
BY THEIR MERITS to obtain a more speedy reconciliation from the bishops. Indeed
the prayers and GOOD WORKS OF HOLY PEOPLE were regarded as of such great value
that it could be asserted that THE PENITENT WAS WASHED, CLEANSED and REDEEMED
with THE HELP OF THE ENTIRE CHRISTIAN PEOPLE’.
Former Roman
Catholic, William Webster, in his book, ‘Salvation, The Bible and
Roman Catholicism’ writes on pages 58-59 –
‘the sacrifice of Christ is a once-for-all sacrifice dealing
completely with the penalty for sin. But the Roman Catholic Church teaches that
the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is not an adequate sacrifice in that it has not
completely remitted all the punishment due to sin. Consequently Roman
Catholic teaching requires faith plus works for justification. It teaches
that the merits won for us on the cross by Christ must be channelled and
applied to us through the sacraments which priests alone can administer. Then,
in addition, they must be merited by ourselves through our own works, moral
life, prayers, fastings, sufferings and penances. ALL OF THIS REPLACES THE
WORK OF JESUS CHRIST BY THE WORK OF MAN. The net result is that men and women
put their faith in a church and their own moral and religious works rather than in the
person of Jesus Christ Himself. This is why the church calls itself “The
Universal Sacrament of Salvation”’.
Can anyone
seriously doubt that when Mr McGrath said ‘some
evangelicals continue to insist that the Roman Catholic Church officially
teaches justification by works, this is not true’ that in reality his statement is the one that is ‘not true’? I come now to another statement that I believe is ‘an
obvious untruth’. Mr McGrath wrote –
‘It is no accident that some evangelicals, especially those
within mainline churches have chosen to become Roman Catholics…Maybe they
reason it is easier to be an evangelical inside the Catholic Church which
defends ALL the vital Christian doctrines yet adds on a few more, than to
remain inside some mainline Protestant denominations which seem bent on denying
or deforming the basic tenets of Christianity itself’.
The word
‘evangelical’ has clearly become a very debased term over recent decades if
this assertion by Mr McGrath were true. No true Christian would ever have
asserted that Rome was a defender
of ‘ALL the vital Christian
doctrines’ and in consequence no true
Christian would ever find
‘it is easier to be an evangelical inside the
Catholic Church’. What true Christian could
be at ease with ‘baptismal regeneration’, ‘priestly confession and
absolution’, ‘temporal punishment’, ‘indulgences’, ‘purgatory’, ‘salvation by
works’, ‘sacrifice of the mass’, ‘papal infallibility’, ‘Mary’s immaculate
conception’, ‘Mary’s bodily assumption’, ‘veneration of relics’, ‘kissing of
statues’, ‘transubstantiation’, ‘tradition forming part of the Word of God’, and
many more false teachings which Mr McGrath dismissively referred to as ‘a few more’. Mr McGrath does make reference to some of these issues
later in his article but obviously here he does not feel that they are a sufficient
stumbling block to those whom he perceives to be ‘evangelicals’ converting to
Rome where he believes ‘they reason it is easier to be an evangelical inside the
Catholic Church’. The reality is that these
converts to Rome may in Mr McGrath’s judgment be ‘evangelicals’ but from their
own ‘testimony’ evidence and from personal first-hand encounters in debates in
a few cases they are clearly not Christians. Let me next highlight
another ‘subtle half truth’ that verges on the border of ‘an
obvious untruth’. Mr McGrath wrote –
‘The document’s insistence on the importance of the
missionary role of the church also suggests that evangelicals and Roman
Catholics will find a degree of convergence on the vital role of evangelism in
the modern world…The catechism here reflects the broad commitment to evangelism
that has been typical of Roman Catholicism of late and distinguished it from
the outdated and limpid liberalism of mainline Protestantism’.
I don’t know
what Mr McGrath’s experience of Christian and Protestant evangelism has been
but my own has been most positive as I have often listened to speakers from a
range of missionary societies recounting their experiences in attempting to
bring the saving gospel of Jesus Christ to those in spiritual darkness – to
people who are either adherents of non-Christian faiths, members of false
religious cults, atheists and humanists or tribal people involved in ancestor
worship or animism. In short, Christians have a zeal to evangelise all who are
not as the Saviour Himself said “born again” for they recognise that
such, in their present unregenerate state,
“cannot enter the Kingdom of God”. Is that how Rome views ‘evangelism in
the modern world’? By way of an answer let me first quote Vatican 2:
Volume 1: Page 367: ‘the plan of salvation also includes those who
acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these
profess to hold the faith of Abraham and together with us they adore the one
merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day’. Unless I have read
this wrongly the only conclusion one can come to is that Rome clearly sees no
need to evangelise Moslems. This statement from Vatican 2 is
repeated verbatim in Paragraph 841 of the Catholic
Catechism reviewed by Mr McGrath in his article. Vatican 2
continues on page 367 ‘Those who through no fault of their own do
not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with
a sincere heart and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they
know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve
eternal salvation’. If this were true [which it most certainly is not]
what possible incentive would there be to obey the command of Christ to “Go
ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” [Mark 16:15] when
according to Rome “every creature” even if he doesn’t hear of Christ but
is nevertheless sincere in his man-made religion ‘may
achieve eternal salvation’ without hearing of Christ. It would appear
that if Rome’s ‘limpid’ views on the necessity of evangelising “every
creature” were true then the Apostle Paul was worrying unduly when he wrote
to the Christians in Rome “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the
Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not
believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not
heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall
they preach except they be sent?” [Romans 10:13-15a].
The present Pope,
John Paul 2nd, said in his ‘General Audience’ of 6
December 2000 – ‘Those who have chosen the way of the Gospel
Beatitudes and live as “the poor in spirit” detached from material goods, in
order to raise up the lowly of the earth from the dust of humiliation, will
enter the kingdom of God…Those who lovingly bear the sufferings of life will
enter the kingdom…All the just of the earth, INCLUDING THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW
CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH, who under the influence of grace, seek God with a
sincere heart, are thus called to build the kingdom of God by working with the
Lord, who is its first and decisive builder’.
Former Roman
Catholic priest, Richard Bennett said in response to this statement – ‘These
beguiling words are false. Each expression suggests salvation in a way that is
alien to Scripture…It is nonsense to imply that a man who does not know Christ
can be a part of the kingdom of God’. The truth is that the official Roman
Catholic ‘party-line’, far from
being a ‘broad commitment to evangelism’ as Mr
McGrath claimed, sounds the very ‘death-knell’ of committed Christian
world-wide evangelism and no true Christian would find any ‘convergence’ with Rome’s expressed views on this matter. One final ‘subtle half truth’ before we
finish. Mr McGrath wrote -
‘Many evangelicals also would feel and not entirely without
reason that there appears to be an emphasis within the catechism upon
rituals rather than personal faith. Let me stress that this need not be the
case in that many evangelicals, especially within Lutherism and Anglicanism
find the sacraments to be an important aid to personal devotion and a deepened
faith’.
I want to make 2
points here. Firstly, Mr McGrath introduces an element of doubt by his use of
the expression ‘there appears to be’ when referring to an ‘emphasis within
the catechism upon rituals’. There is no question
that the catechism does lay an emphasis
‘upon rituals rather than personal faith’. Paragraph
1129 states ‘The Church
affirms that for believers
the sacraments [‘rituals’] of the New Covenant ARE NECESSARY FOR
SALVATION’. If that’s not laying ‘an emphasis’ then I don’t know what is. Then secondly Mr
McGrath downplays the ‘evangelical’ reservations in this matter by affirming
that Lutheran and Anglican ‘evangelicals’ ‘find the sacraments to be an
important aid to personal devotion and a deepened faith’. Can I say that
true Christians ‘find the sacraments to be an important aid to personal
devotion and a deepened faith’ but they recoil
at the suggestion that ‘the sacraments’ are in any way ‘necessary
for salvation’ as the Roman Catholic catechism falsely teaches?
Christians have every biblical right to reject, as constituting a false gospel,
the ‘emphasis within the catechism upon rituals rather than
personal faith’.
At the end of
his article Mr McGrath talks of ‘the possibility that the two groups could
form a coalition working for doctrinal orthodoxy and moral renewal at every
level of society’ and he describes this as ‘an attractive vision’. Without wishing
to be too unkind to Mr McGrath this ‘hope’ is quite frankly ‘pie in the
sky’ for Rome and her false gospel are declared by them to be ‘semper
eadem’ [always the same] – in other words – irreformable and the
sooner Mr McGrath and his friend J I Packer realise this then the better it
will be for the true Christian gospel and for those who are faithfully
preaching it to every lost “creature”.
Alister McGrath and Recommended Reading
Whilst browsing
in a Christian Bookshop the day after I wrote the article on ‘Alister McGrath and The Catholic
Catechism’, I saw a little booklet
entitled ‘Theology for Amateurs’ by Alister McGrath. In chapter 12 of ‘Theology for Amateurs’,
a chapter that is entitled ‘Moving On’ Mr McGrath
lists details of two ‘theologians who write well’ [page 85] and
their names are then given on page 86. In the light
of their close connection it comes as no surprise to find the name of J I
Packer listed. And who is the other ‘theologian who writes well’?
None other than C S Lewis. Mr McGrath wrote – ‘C S Lewis is
remembered for his “Chronicles of Narnia”, a series of finely written
stories for children which set out basic Christian ideas in an extremely
imaginative and attractive form. His more serious theological works – such as “Surprised
by Joy” and “Mere Christianity” – offer a well-argued and highly
readable account of the basic themes of the Christian faith
Lewis was noted as a very skilful communicator, and exploring his writings is
an enjoyable and effective way of furthering your interest in theology’.
In the light of our previous articles/studies on what C
S Lewis wrote in “Mere Christianity” [I had hoped in this newsletter to
conclude the series on C S Lewis but due to the pressing need of
including these articles on Mr McGrath it will appear [DV] in our June
newsletter] this recommendation of C
S Lewis by Mr McGrath represents just one more worrying aspect
concerning one described as ‘one of the world’s leading contemporary
theologians’. I can really only come to one conclusion concerning the
writings of Mr McGrath – “TAKE HEED”!
Scripture Union [R.O.I] Support ‘Ecumenical
Employee
In September
2001 I included an enclosure with ‘News From The Front’ telling of the
appointment of a practising Roman Catholic [Jim Donnan] as
General Director of Scripture Union [Republic of Ireland]. Further evidence of
Scripture Union’s ‘ecumenical entanglement’ appeared in their SU Focus Newsletter of October 2003. The
article, headed ‘Great News For Greystones’ stated –
Inspired by St. Paul where Over a protracted time of
he says 'There are many preparation and discernment,
parts, yet one body' (1 Cor the delegated members of
12:20) seven Christian these Christian groups
Groups, namely, Church of formulated principles which
Ireland, Catholic, would guide the
mission of
Presbyterian, Nazarene this Associated Christian
Community Church, Hillside Youth Worker for the town of
Evangelical Church, YWCA Greystones.
and Scripture Union, came After a period of publicity
together in mutual respect to and fund‑raising, the
find a way of collectively representatives of the various
reaching out to the young groups have decided to
people in the Greystones proceed with advertising (see
area. Their focus is the below) and recruitment.
disaffected or marginalised Scripture Union have offered
youth, and they seek to work to administer this process.
together to employ a youth This is a very exciting
worker whose brief is to find development, and perhaps a
new, creative and imaginative model for other communities
ways of bringing the good to consider.
news of the Gospel [simple
questions – which gospel? – Christian or Catholic?] of Jesus
Christ to young people. Please bring this
advertisement to the
Christ is at the heart of this attention of your contacts.
initiative, and it is
understood that all work Please also pray that God will
carried out is in the give us wisdom in
selecting
promotion of solidarity in the person of His choosing
Christ both in spirit and for this important job in
the
practice. town of Greystones.
Jim Donnan
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE and SALVATION
In November 2003 the Belfast Telegraph printed an
intriguing article about an organist who for most of his life had played in
Presbyterian churches but was now helping out the Christian Science church
located in Belfast. The article conveyed the impression that Christian Science
was simply another orthodox Christian denomination. The following comparison
chart will show that this is not the case. As well as the Bible, Christian
Science looks for authority to the book ‘Science and Health with Key to
the Scriptures’ written by its founder Mary Baker Eddy. Christian
Science is quite simply a cult.
|
The
Bible |
Science
& Health with Key to the Scriptures |
|
“If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and
the truth is not in us” [1 John 1:8] “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of
God” [Romans 3:23] |
‘the only reality of sin, sickness or death is the
awful fact that unrealities seem real to human, erring belief, until
God strips off their disguise. They are not true because they are
not of God…Sin, sickness and death are to be classified as effects
of error…Man is incapable of sin, sickness and death. The real man
cannot depart from holiness [p 472-475] |
|
“If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we
have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his
Son, cleanseth us from all sin” [1 John 1:7] |
‘The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious
to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon “the accursed tree”,
than when it was flowing in his veins as he went daily about his Father’s
business’ [p 25] |
|
“Christ died for the ungodly…But God commendeth his
love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for
us…we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son [Romans 5:6,8
&10] |
‘His disciples believed Jesus to be dead while he
was hidden in the sepulchre whereas he was alive…Paul writes “For
if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the [SEEMING]
death of His Son’ [p 44-45] |