The Church of Patches

The Catholic Church may have started in its infancy with its basic foundation based on the Scriptures. However, it no longer basis its beliefs on the Scriptures only.

If you look at this graphic of a pair of pants which have been patched and re-patched, you can see the analogy I wish to make. The catholic church may have had an unpatched pair of pants at its beginning. However, throughout the years, the catholic church has added a dogma (a patch) and another dogma (another patch), and many others. This results in a pair of pants that is beyond repair because it is made up only of patches. There was a pair of pants under there somewhere, however, the patches are holding up the pants instead of the pants holding up the patches. Any seamstress knows that you can only patch so much and then there is nothing for the patch to hang on to.

Since the catholic church’s main foundational dogma is the office of the pope, which is a huge patch I might add, then let’s see what the Bible has to say about such an important dogma. They believe that Peter was the first pope. However, Peter spoke against “being lords over God’s heritage” in I Peter 5:3.

~1 Peter 5:1-3 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: (1) Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; (2) Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. (3)

Peter, himself, said that he was an elder like the rest of them. Furthermore, Peter said that these same elders (himself included) should not be lords over this flock! The Holy Spirit is God and He was at the beginning of the Bible when it was penned. He could also see into the future and He knew what topics to cover in the Bible to make sure that we had every verse we needed to follow Christ’s path. Does this “lords over God’s heritage” statement sound like the Holy Spirit knew the catholic church would develop a hierarchical system that would lord over its membership? It sure does. God knew and He provided verses that would put a wrench into the romish system. This is where their other “patch” (Sacred Tradition) comes in.

I also find it interesting that if Peter were the first pope, he would have penned a lot more letters to the Christians in the New Testament than just the eight chapters which contain 166 verses. The Apostle Paul penned 100 chapters with 2,325 verses. Doesn’t it stand to reason that an office as important as the first pope would have been recognized by the Holy Spirit as an important office and God would have included a lot more writings by this first pope?

In fact, the Bible goes on to say that we are to follow after Christ’s teachings which, in turn, were through Paul’s teachings. Does this not bother you, dear catholic?

~1 Corinthians 4:16-17 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. (16) For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church. (17)

Paul had every opportunity to promote the catholic church and the pope at this point. He had every opportunity to tell the Christians to follow Peter’s way – but instead, he encouraged them to follow after his ways which were Christ’s ways – Scriptural ways. He goes on to say that he, Paul, was teaching Christ’s way in every church. He didn’t say he was teaching the “Peter’s way or the catholic church’s way” – which, again, would have been the perfect opportunity to do so.

Sadly, the catholic church has added this huge patch of dogma and so many others that one can no longer see the true Christian foundation that Christ has laid. A catholic can find Christ’s foundation and Christ’s intentions for us in the Bible but the catholic is not encouraged to search these things out for himself because of yet another “patch,” which says that they cannot interpret the Scriptures for themselves. Yet Christ asked the unsaved lawyer in Luke 10:25 if he had searched the Scriptures!

What the catholic church now has is a man-made pair of pants filled with patches and one day, it will fall apart. The Book of Revelations talks about this and you can be sure it will happen.

The Baptist Muse Topsites The Forums at The Baptist Muse - Independent Fundamental Baptist Articles, Downloads, Forums, Topsites, and Much More! The Fundamental Top 500 The Baptist Top 1000

Do you remember when? Black and White

I hope you enjoy a visit down Memory Lane :-) It will reveal our age but who cares!!

Kate




1.130301859@web57105.mail.re3.yahoo.com



2.130301861@web57105.mail.re3.yahoo.com



3.130301861@web57105.mail.re3.yahoo.com



4.130301861@web57105.mail.re3.yahoo.com



5.130301861@web57105.mail.re3.yahoo.com



6.130301861@web57105.mail.re3.yahoo.com



7.130301861@web57105.mail.re3.yahoo.com



8.130301861@web57105.mail.re3.yahoo.com


(Under age 40? You won’t understand.)

You could hardly see for all the snow, spread the rabbit ears as far as they go.
Pull a chair up to the TV set, ‘Good Night, David. Good Night, Chet.’

My Mom used to cut chicken, chop eggs, and spread mayo on the same cutting board with the same knife and no bleach, but we didn’t seem to get food poisoning.

My Mom used to defrost hamburger on the counter AND I used to eat it raw sometimes, too. Our school sandwiches were wrapped in wax paper in a brown paper bag, not in ice-pack coolers, but I can’t remember getting e.coli.

Almost all of us would have rather gone swimming in the lake instead of a pristine pool (talk about boring), no beach closures then.

The term cell phone would have conjured up a phone in a jail cell, and a pager was the school PA system.

We all took gym, not PE …. and risked permanent injury with a pair of high top Ked’s (only worn in gym) instead of having cross-training athletic sho es with air cushion soles and built in light reflectors. I can’t recall any injuries but they must have happened because they tell us how much safer we are now.

Flunking gym was not an option, even for stupid kids! I guess PE must be much harder than gym.

Speaking of school, we all said prayers and sang the national anthem, and staying in detention after school caught all sorts of negative attention.

We must have had horribly damaged psyches. What an archaic health system w e had then. Remember school nurses? Ours wore a hat and everything.

I thought that I was supposed to accomplish something before I was allowed to be proud of myself.

I just can’t recall how bored we were without computers, Play Station, Nintendo, X-box, or 270 digital TV cable stations.

Oh yeah … and where was the Benadryl and sterilization kit when I got that bee sting? I could have been killed!

We played ‘king of the hill’ on piles of gravel left on vacant construction sites, and when we got hurt, Mom pulled out the 48-cent bottle of Mercurochrome (kids liked it better because it didn’t sting like iodine did) and then we got our butt spanked.

Now it’s a trip to the emergency room, followed by a 10-day dose of a $49 bottle of antibiotics, and then Mom calls the attorney to sue the contractor for leaving a horribly vicious pile of gravel where it was such a threat.

We didn’t act up at the neighbor’s house either because if we did, we got our butt spanked there and then we got our butt spanked again when we got home.

I recall Donny Reynolds from next door coming over and doing his tricks on the front stoop, just before he fell off. Little did his Mom know that she could have owned our house. Instead, she picked him up and swatted him for being such a goof. It was a neighborhood run amuck.

To top it off, not a single person I knew had ever been told that they were from a dysfunctional family. How could we possibly have known that?

We needed to get into group therapy and anger management classes? We were obviously so duped by so many societal ills that we didn’t even notice that the entire country wasn’t taking Prozac! How did we ever survive?

LOVE TO ALL OF US WHO SHARED THIS ERA, AND TO ALL WHO DIDN’T; SORRY FOR WHAT YOU MISSED. I WOULDN’T TRADE IT FOR ANYTHING.

Pass this to someone and remember that life’s most simple pleasures are very often the best.

The Baptist Muse Topsites The Forums at The Baptist Muse - Independent Fundamental Baptist Articles, Downloads, Forums, Topsites, and Much More! The Fundamental Top 500 The Baptist Top 1000

Undercover Reporter in United Kingdom Films Islamofascism in Action

Undercover Reporter in United Kingdom
Films Islamofascism in Action !!

Over a year ago, a United Kingdom television station dispatched a reporter to go undercover into mosques in the UK.

In a series of blockbuster video reports that have been posted on YouTube, viewers get to see for themselves what Brigitte Gabriel and others have been warning about for years.

In just the first installment, you will see imams proclaiming:

“Allah has created the woman deficient…If she doesn’t wear the hijab, we hit her.”

“You have to live like a state within a state until you take over.”

“The pinnacle, the crest, the summit of Islam, is jihad.”

In that same installment you will see how a large Muslim organization in the UK has a “special” chat room for communication not meant for non-Muslims to see.

You will see how imams despise non-believers and call for jihad against them.

But what is most relevant for us in America, is that the Saudi Arabian religious establishment that provides the materials and the teaching that is going on inside these British mosques also provides the materials and the teaching for many – if not most – mosques here in the United States.

So when you click on the link below to view these undercover videos, remind yourself that this is what is happening in mosques right here in America — perhaps in your community, and even right down the street from you!

http://uk.youtube.com/results?search_query=dispatches+undercover+mosque

If you aren’t able to see these videos on your computer, find someone who can.

Words alone do not do justice to the reality of the threat we are facing. Please click on the link above, view one or more of the videos, and then forward this email to everyone you know.

——————————————————————————————-

ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org

The Baptist Muse Topsites The Forums at The Baptist Muse - Independent Fundamental Baptist Articles, Downloads, Forums, Topsites, and Much More! The Fundamental Top 500 The Baptist Top 1000

Rev. Wright Defends Church, Blasts Media

How Obama can say he had no idea Wright believed certain things or that he (Obama) disagrees with his Pastor’s words, is beyond me. Did he or did he not attend this church for 20 years? Was Wright his mentor and counsellor or was he not? I have been attending the same church for seven years and I know my Pastor’s style, beliefs and disbeliefs. All this after seven years! Therefore, I find it all hard to believe that Wright’s comments in his sermons and now the “defense of black church traditions” has not had some effect on Obama! Come on people! Are we not intelligent human beings? Do we not have brains? Are we so blinded by the liberal media that we cannot see a wolf in sheep’s clothing?


Source: Rev. Wright Defends Church, Blasts Media

Rev. Wright Defends Church, Blasts Media
The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. spoke at the
National Press Club in Washington on Monday.
(Photo: Doug Mills/The New York Times)

In three major appearances in the last four days, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. offered a full-throated historical defense of black church traditions. But his re-emergence on the national stage has certainly served to provide more sound-bites that already have begun to haunt Senator Barack Obama on the campaign trail.

With Senator John McCain’s fresh criticisms of the pastor and Republicans painting him and Mr. Obama as extremist in commercials using snippets of sermons, Mr. Wright, longtime pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, defiantly and passionately argued that such criticisms were attacks on the black church and its faith traditions, not attacks on him.

In an appearance this morning at the National Press Club in Washington, Mr. Wright mixed biblical passages and scholarly works with sarcasm and humor in his efforts to address the nearly two months’ long barrage of questions that have dogged his church and Mr. Obama since excerpts of his sermons first began looping around on television and the Internet.

Asked why he chose to speak out now, Mr. Wright said: “On November the 5th and on January 21st, I’ll still be a pastor. As I’ve said, this is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. It has nothing to do with Senator Obama. This is an attack on the black church launched by people who know nothing about the African- American religious tradition.”

Mr. Obama, a parishioner at Mr. Wright’s church for about 20 years, tried to tamp down the controversy in Philadelphia more than a month ago, with a major speech on race relations. In that address and since then, Mr. Obama said he disagreed with some of Mr. Wright’s remarks but would not denounce him because he had become like family.

In an interview on Fox News on Sunday, Mr. Obama said he had not talked with the reverend about his decision to embark on a public defense of his reputation. Asked to respond to Mr. Wright’s contention that he has been the victim of a smear campaign, Mr. Obama said: “No. I think that people were legitimately offended by some of the comments that he had made in the past. The fact that he is my former pastor I think makes it a legitimate political issue. So I understand that.”

But he also said that media coverage of Mr. Wright had simplified his service in the church, and turned him into a caricature.

Our colleague Jeff Zeleny tells us that associates of Mr. Obama said privately that his campaign was furious at Mr. Wright’s decision to step forward so publicly, but that they were unable to do anything to control this. They added, however, that the pastor’s actions prove that he and Mr. Obama are not that close, otherwise why would Mr. Wright do this now?

The timing may be critical, though, for Mr. Obama, who has struggled to regain his footing (and retooled his message) after Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton trounced him in Pennsylvania where his remarks about small-town Americans may have influenced a swath of white voters to support her.

Despite Mr. Wright’s efforts to school the public and the media on theology and the black church, some of his responses this week bring the issue of race and the church’s association with divisive figures like the Rev. Louis Farrakhan into sharp relief. Senator Clinton has already said Mr. Wright would not be her pastor, and she has pounded home the issue of Mr. Obama’s electability — given such vulnerabilities that the Republicans would seize upon in the general election.

During his remarks today, Mr. Wright chided the media for distorting his sermons and for their ignorance of biblical history and black worship traditions, joked that he had served six years in the Marines while Vice President Dick Cheney had not, and lectured his audience repeatedly about the need for reconciliation among faiths and races.

Reprising themes from the speech he gave to the NAACP in Detroit this weekend, Mr. Wright offered:

“The prophetic theology of the black church in our day is preached to set African-Americans and all other Americans free from the misconceived notion that different means deficient. Being different does not mean one is deficient. It simply means one is different, like snowflakes, like the diversity that God loves. Black music is different from European and European music. It is not deficient. It is just different. Black worship is different from European and European-American worship. It is not deficient. It is just different. Black preaching is different from European and European-American preaching. It is not deficient. It is just different. It is not bombastic. It is not controversial. It’s different.”

Before we break off some bullet points to his responses, here’s a transcript of his full address today so that readers can appreciate the full defense Mr. Wright tried to offer.

In the question-and-answer session this morning, Mr. Wright was asked about some of the statements he’s made that were deemed incendiary and about his church’s associations with Mr. Farrakhan.
Here are a few bullet points:

Farrakhan: Mr. Wright praised Mr. Farrakhan’s ability to get 1 million people to march on the Washington Mall. Then, he added:

“He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that’s what I think about him. I said, as I said on Bill Moyers, when Louis Farrakhan speaks it’s like E.F. Hutton speaks. All black America listens. Whether they agree with him or not, they listen.

Now, I am not going to put down Louis Farrakhan any more than Mandela will put down Fidel Castro. You remember that Ted Koppel show where Ted wanted Mandela to put down Castro because Castro is our enemy, and he said, “You don’t tell me who my enemies are; you don’t tell me who my friends are.”

Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn’t make me this color.

The 9/11 Remarks:

On the excerpt of his sermon after the Sept. 11 attacks when he remarked that the “chickens were coming home to roost,” Mr. Wright first chided the questioner for not having listened to the entire sermon.

“Well, let me try to respond in a non-bombastic way.
If you heard the whole sermon, first of all, you heard that I was
quoting the ambassador from Iraq. That’s No. 1. But No. 2, to quote the Bible, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked, for whatsoever you sow that you also shall” — (he held his hand to his ear and the audience shouted “Reap!”)

Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic divisive principles.

The Remarks About America:

The government of leaders, those — as I said to Barack Obama, my member — I’m a pastor; he’s a member. I’m not a “spiritual mentor” — hoodoo. I’m his pastor. And I said to Barack
Obama last year, “If you get elected, November the 5th I’m coming
after you, because you’ll be representing a government whose policies grind under people.” All right? It’s about policy, not the American people.

And if you saw the Bill Moyers show, I was talking about, although it got edited, I was — do you know, that’s biblical? God doesn’t bless everything. God condemns something. And D-E-M-N, demn, is where we get the word damn. God damns some practices.

And there is no excuse for the things that the government, not
the American people, have done. That doesn’t make me not
like America, or unpatriotic. So when Jesus says, not only you brood of vipers, now he’s playing the dozens because he’s talking about their mamas. To say brood means your mother is an asp, A-S-P. (Laughter.) Should we put Jesus out of the congregation?

When Jesus says, you will be brought down to hell, that’s not —
that’s bombastic device of speech. Maybe we ought to take Jesus out of this Christian faith. No.

What I said about and what I think about and what — again until
I can’t — until racism and slavery are confessed and asked for — we asked the Japanese to forgive us. We have never as a country — in fact, Clinton almost got in trouble because he almost apologized at Goree Island.

We have never apologized as a country. Britain has apologized to
Africans. But this country’s leaders have refused to apologize. So until that apology comes, I’m not going to keep stepping on your foot and asking you, does this hurt do you forgive me for stepping on your foot, if I’m still stepping on your foot. Understand that? Capice?

On His Patriotism:

I feel that those citizens who say that have never heard my sermons, nor do they know me. They are unfair accusations taken from sound bites, and that which is looped over and over again on certain channels.

I served six years in the military. Does that make me patriotic? How many years did Cheney serve?

Now, Mr. Wright dismissed the idea that it was God’s will that Mr. Obama become president. And he joked about running for vice president. Of former President Bill Clinton’s comments that many African-Americans found offensive during the South Carolina primary, Mr. Wright said: “I don’t think anything about them. I came here to talk about the prophetic theology of the black church. I’m not talking about candidates or their positions or their feelings or what they have to say to get elected.”

We have yet to hear today from Mr. Obama on Mr. Wright’s remarks. But David Axelrod, the campaign’s chief strategist, was questioned closely this morning on MSNBC about whether the pastor’s very public speeches will harm the candidate. “How many times,” Mr. Axelrod asked, “how many times can you say, ‘I don’t agree with him, some of the things he says are outrageous, and he doesn’t speak for me?’ ”

He was also asked by Pat Buchanan, the conservative commentator, whether Mr. Wright’s decision to speak at the National Press Club, a high-profile platform, wasn’t exploitative of his relationship with Mr. Obama?

“And does that not put sort of a burden on Barack Obama, who is trying to be a unifying figure, to have to cut this guy loose in a way that he was unable to do or would not do in Philadelphia?” Mr. Buchanan asked.

“Well, he — first of all, Pat, Barack Obama is a unifying figure, always has been in our politics here in Illinois and in everything that he’s ever done. And I think people will judge him on that basis,” Mr. Axelrod said. “I’m not going to comment on Reverend Wright’s motivations or, you know, the sort of political implications of what he’s doing. We’re going to go out — I mean, the one thing that I’m going to make clear and that we’ll continue to make clear is that he does not speak for us.”

Reverend Wright is in town for a religion conference. Video of Mr. Wright’s speech at the NAACP in Detroit. And Bill Moyers’ interview with the reverend on PBS.

Ariel Alexovich contributed to this post.

The Baptist Muse Topsites The Forums at The Baptist Muse - Independent Fundamental Baptist Articles, Downloads, Forums, Topsites, and Much More! The Fundamental Top 500 The Baptist Top 1000

What is Written?

The Gospels record that Jesus went into the synagogues and taught from the Scriptures every Sabbath. This appears at least ten times in just the Gospels alone. Jesus’ source for teaching was the Scriptures – not the traditions of men. In fact, Jesus taught against the Pharisaical (hypocritical) traditions and spoke for the Scriptural traditions (i.e. honor your father and mother, etc.) In the Book of Matthew (the Book written to the Jews), it is recorded three times that Jesus called the Pharisees “vipers” because of their hypocritical traditions. He reprimanded them publicly for following after traditions that were contrary to what was written in the Scriptures.

What the Pharisees were practicing could not be found in the Scriptures but were things that were added throughout the generations to add to the Scriptures. Furthermore, Jesus said,

Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. ~Mat 15:6b

The times have not changed since the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day. The Roman Catholic Church does not hold the Scriptures as their only source of inspiration either. They combine the Scriptures with magisterium and sacred traditions and all three are what the catholic church bases its beliefs upon. The roman church claims that the Bible cannot have its own private interpretation but must be interpreted by the hierarchy of the church. They claim the early church fathers believed this, however, the Word of God says differently.

The early church fathers actually believed that the written Word is what Christ held as authority and what the Apostles held as authority. Let the Bible speak for itself as to what Jesus and the early church fathers believed.

Jesus asked the unbelieving lawyer how he interpreted what the Scriptures said:

He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? ~Luke 10:26

This tells me that in Jesus’ day, the Word of God could be understood by the unbelieving lawyer and that Christ held the lawyer accountable to what the Word of God said. Jesus did not cut the lawyer any slack because he was not born again. The unbelieving lawyer was knowledgeable in the Scriptures for he quoted it back to Jesus. But the lawyer obviously did not obey the Scriptures – notice the verses that follow:

~Luke 10:27-29 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. (27) And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. ( 28 ) But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? (29)

Notice how the lawyer tried to cover his disobedience by trying to justify himself in verse 29. But Jesus used the Scriptures to prove his inadequacy. Man-made traditions are totally inadequate. They cannot replace the Word of God – they cannot add or make purer the perfect Scriptures.

The Apostle who wrote the Book of Acts stated:

For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. ~Acts 1:20

All the Apostles looked to the written Word of God to direct them. They followed Psalms to instruct them how to pick another Apostle to make up the twelve. Note the qualifications of an Apostle in verses 21 and 22:

~Acts 1:21-22 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, (21) Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. (22)

So catholic church tradition and magisterium disagree with the Word of God. The pope cannot descend from Peter as none can meet these qualifications.

Jesus was adamant about looking to the Scriptures for our answers. He goes as far as saying that we greatly err when we don’t read the Word and use it as our only Source of direction.

~Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

~Mark 12:24, 27 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? (24) He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. (27)

Both times, Jesus said that man makes errors by not knowing the Scriptures! So who do you obey when there is a contradiction between the Scriptures and what you have been taught, dear catholic reader? Would you rather go to your grave believing the words of the pope and bishops and wonder if they were correct? What do you have to lose by reading God’s Word? The lost lawyer read God’s Word and Jesus judged him by the same Scriptures. Why would Jesus treat you any different? You can’t get any earlier in church history than with Jesus and the Apostles, my friend. All taught from the Scriptures and preached that we make mistakes when we don’t read and obey the Scriptures. Why? Because, as Jesus said, the Scriptures are the power of God.

The Baptist Muse Topsites The Forums at The Baptist Muse - Independent Fundamental Baptist Articles, Downloads, Forums, Topsites, and Much More! The Fundamental Top 500 The Baptist Top 1000

Names of Jesus – Day 12 – Emmanuel

What a comforting thought this is. To think that the God of Glory, the Creator of the Universe, would leave Heaven to come on earth just to be with us is an awesome thing to meditate upon! Just think about it for a moment.

I found it interesting that the Bible would use this name for Jesus. It reveals to me one of God’s characteristics. I find that God is a stickler for detail. By giving us numerous names for Jesus, He gives us a glimpse of just who He is. When we combine all these “different glimpses,” we have an overall view of our Lord and Saviour. Another way to look at this is to imagine that you are a pumpkin pie which is cut into eight pieces. Each piece of the pie is part of you, the whole pie, but each piece is unique because it is nearly impossible to cut a pie and have the pieces all be the exact same size.

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. ~Matthew 1:23

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. ~Isaiah 7:14

What a loving God we serve! He knew that man could not possibly do all the works of the law and not sin. He knew that the blood of lambs could only cover our sins while His own blood can cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). Can you imagine knowing that your only purpose on this earth was to be put to death in a horrific manner? I dare say, my flesh would take over and I would change my mind, most assuredly. Not only did God know the suffering He would have to undergo, He chose to do it anyway.

Christ not only walked the earth, but He was tempted as we are tempted. He experienced the same types of trials and tribulations as we experience. He is able to bring us comfort because He has already been through it all and He knows exactly what we need. My friend, Emmanuel continues to live with us! He did not cease to do so once He arose into Heaven. In fact, He left us His Holy Spirit so that God could continue to be our Emmanuel. Emmanuel does not mean “God WAS with us” but “God IS with us”!

Each born-again believer is given the Holy Spirit and this same Spirit walks by our side, each step of the way. We pilgrims may be walking a troublesome pathway but we can rest assured that Emmanuel is walking that same path. Does this not bring you great comfort? It surely does to me! I know that I am not alone. Thank You, Lord!

The Baptist Muse Topsites The Forums at The Baptist Muse - Independent Fundamental Baptist Articles, Downloads, Forums, Topsites, and Much More! The Fundamental Top 500 The Baptist Top 1000

Darts

A young lady named Sally, relates an experience she had in a Theology class, given by her teacher, Dr. Smith. She says Dr. Smith was known for his elaborate object lessons.

One particular day, Sally walked into the seminary and knew they were in for a fun day. On the wall was a big target and on a nearby table were many darts. Dr. Smith told the students to draw a picture of someone that they disliked or someone who had made them angry, and he would allow them to throw darts at the person’s picture. Sally’s girlfriend drew a picture of a girl who had stolen her boyfriend. Another friend drew a picture of his little brother. Sally drew a picture of a former friend, putting a great deal of detail into her drawing, even drawing pimples on the face. Sally was pleased at the overall effect she had achieved.

The class lined up and began throwing darts, with much laughter and hilarity. Some of the students threw their darts with such force that their targets were ripping apart. Sally looked forward to her turn,and was filled with disappointment when Dr. Smith, because of time limits, asked the students to return to their seats. As Sally sat thinking about how angry she was because she didn’t have a chance to throw any darts at her target.

Dr. Smith began removing the target from the wall. Underneath the target was a picture of Jesus . . .

A complete hush fell over the as each student viewed the mangled picture of Jesus; holes and jagged marks covered His face and His eyes were pierced. Dr. Smith said only these words:

In as much as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto Me. ~Matthew 25:40

No other words were necessary; the tear-filled eyes of each student focused only on the picture of Christ.

~Author Unknown

The Baptist Muse Topsites The Forums at The Baptist Muse - Independent Fundamental Baptist Articles, Downloads, Forums, Topsites, and Much More! The Fundamental Top 500 The Baptist Top 1000

Names of Jesus – Day 11 – Door

It is interesting that Jesus Himself would use this term to describe His ministry to mankind – a door, a simple yet very poignant description indeed.

Picture this, if you will. You’re going to visit someone. You are approaching their house and you walk up the pathway to the door and knock. They do not immediately answer the door, so you knock again. Again, no answer. Do you break the door down to gain access to their house? Of course not. Thinking that they are not at home, you walk away with plans to return another day.

Jesus is no different. His Holy Spirit draws us to Him. The Spirit’s job is to glorify Jesus Christ through us by drawing us to salvation. As a result, the fruit of the Spirit that shines through us are a testimony to the saving and changing power of Jesus Christ. Salvation, however, is very straight forward. It does not involve a complicated path or a series of complicated tasks or rules. Salvation is quite simple – the lost hear the call of the Holy Spirit wooing them to salvation.

~John 10:27-28 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: (27) And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. (28 )

Once the lost hear Christ’s voice, they enter the only door that leads to salvation.

Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. ~John 10:7

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. ~John 10:9

Once we enter into salvation through the Door, Jesus Christ, we are born again. We are new creatures – we are His sheep and He is our Shepherd. He wants to have a personal relationship with us but we must come to Him using God’s way. Being born again is a relationship with Christ, not a religion. There are no perfect churches out there. If there were, none of us could be a member because we are all with sin. However, being born again puts us into a personal relationship with Christ where we are His sheep and we hear His voice. He is our Shepherd and He cares for us, feeds us through His Word, and keeps us safe.

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. ~Revelation 3:20

Many claim they are His, but they try to enter using another way – through false religion – or through their own works. There is no other way, my friend. No matter how much the magisterium and traditions of the roman system try to convince you, Mary has no involvement. The first of Marian dogmas began in the year 431 at the Council of Ephesus, ironically at the Church of Mary! Mary is not the door to God through Christ Jesus, as catholicism claims. That cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. Jesus is the only Door in which we can gain entrance to Heaven. The ecumenical world will say there is another way. However, the Bible has an answer to that as well:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. ~John 10:1

The catholic church would have its members believe that there is salvation only through them. However, the Bible does not say that. The Bible says that salvation is attained by going through the Door, Jesus Christ.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. ~John 14:6

There will come a time when that door will be shut and none will be able to enter. Now is the appointed time of salvation to those who read.

(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. ) ~2 Corinthians 6:2

Do not wait until it is too late. If you have an ounce of doubt as to whether or not you are saved, settle it once and for all before it is too late for you. You do not want to be left standing at the door and Christ does not let you into His Heaven.

When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: ~Luke 13:25

The most horrible words a man can ever hear is,

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. ~Matthew 7:23

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels ~Matthew 25:41:

But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. ~Luke 13:27

The Baptist Muse Topsites The Forums at The Baptist Muse - Independent Fundamental Baptist Articles, Downloads, Forums, Topsites, and Much More! The Fundamental Top 500 The Baptist Top 1000

History Lesson – Mary, Mother of God?

In the 4th century, when Constantine the Great appointed himself Pontifex Maximus – supreme head – of the Christian Church, pagans and their pagan beliefs began infiltrating Christendom. Among the most influential of the new “converts” were those from the Mediterranean and Middle East areas where worship of the “Great Mother Goddess” and the “Divine Virgin” had existed since Babylon. According to Britannica, these groups:

“….found within the Christian Church a new possibility of expression in the worship of Mary as the virgin mother of God, in whom was achieved the mysterious union of the divine Logos with human nature.” (Britannica, Christianity: The doctrine of the Virgin Mary and holy Wisdom.)

By the end of the 4th century, Mary the mother of Jesus, known prior to the advent of Constantine as the Christ-bearer, (Greek Christotokos,) was being referred to as the God-bearer, (theotokos.) Thus was born the doctrine of Mary, mother of God, a title foreign to Scripture where she is called only the mother of Jesus. At first, this matter drew little attention, but in AD 428, Anastasius, a presbyter in the church at Constantinople, raised objections to the theotokos appellation, and thereby originated a controversy that continues to exist here in the 21st century.

Anastasius was immediately supported in his position by Nestorius, bishop of the Constantinople church, who believed that the theotokos title adversely affected the fact of our Lord’s full humanity. Cyril, powerful bishop of Alexandria, motivated as much by envy of Constantinople’s standing among the eastern churches as he was by the theological aspects of the controversy, joined battle over the issue with Nestorius, outflanked him at the AD 431 First Council of Ephesus, and succeeded in confirming Mary as the mother of God. Nestorius, falsely accused of separating Christ’s two natures – human and divine – subsequently was excommunicated, then sacked as bishop of Constantinople by the emperor, Theodosius II, who had appointed him in the first place. He died in exile, but the controversy lives on. Is Mary the mother or Jesus? Or is she, a created being, the mother of eternal God?

The Roman Catholic Church and certain mainline churches that split from Rome during or following the Reformation, declare unequivocally that Mary is, in fact, the mother of God. Those historically and currently who oppose this teaching are accused, as was Nestorius, of “dividing Christ” into an “earthly Jesus” and a “heavenly Jesus,” thereby denying the essential unity of our Lord’s two natures. But that is merely an unproved and unprovable accusation. Christ, in fact, had two distinct natures fused into a single human body, a mystery quite as hidden to man as three distinct persons comprising a single Godhead. To say that Mary was the mother of Jesus only is no more a division of Christ’s two natures than acknowledging Christ as the only begotten Son of the Father is a division of the Godhead. Both are mysteries akin to that of a virgin being with child allegedly conceived by that same unborn child because He is a member of the Godhead. Shades, in other words, of the Babylonian “Mystery” religion.

In a document entitled, The Mother of Jesus, published by the Catholic Information Service of the Knights of Columbus, justification for calling Mary the mother of God is capsulized in the following two paragraphs:

In the natural and normal process of human reproduction, when both maternal and paternal functions unite, God simultaneously creates the human soul which enlivens the fecundated ovum in the woman’s womb, and thus a human person is conceived. It is always an individual’s human nature – a person who possesses human nature. (Emphasis added mine.)

It matters not that the woman has no part in the production of the spiritual element (directly created by God) in the human nature of the person she conceives. It suffices that she has supplied the bodily substance which goes into the constitution of human nature possessed by the person, that she rightly acquires the title of mother. (Emphasis added mine.)

No one disputes the fact that Mary is the mother of the human Jesus even though she was not the “supplier” of His human soul. Nor is there any question that the man Christ Jesus was created human in body, soul and spirit. What is disputed is the extension of the title “mother” to a divine nature that eternally existed and was not created in the womb of the virgin. A mother is only the mother of what originates within her womb. The second person of the blessed trinity did not originate in Mary’s body. He is without beginning – has always existed – and has no mother.

“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.) (Psalm 90:2) “Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.” (Psalm 93:2) “But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him,” (Psalm 103:17) “Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting: and let all the people say, Amen. Praise ye the LORD.” (Psalm 106:48 )

That Jesus had two natures – one created and one eternal – united in a single human body is beyond question. That only one of those two natures originated in Mary’s womb also is beyond question. And why she cannot then be called the mother of God finds an exact parallel in Christ’s relationship to King David.

“He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:” (Luke 1:32) “And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?” (Matt 12:23) “And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.” (Matt 15:22) “And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David.” (Matt 20:30) “And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.” (Matt 21:9)

In these Scriptures it is clearly established that the nation of Israel expected their Messiah to derive – as prophesied – from the tribe of Judah and the house of David, thereby attributing fatherhood of the Messiah to David in accordance with their method of reckoning descent. But David cannot be called the father of God because of his relationship to the man Christ Jesus. Our Lord Himself preempted any possibility of that erroneous belief.

“While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.” (Matt 22:42-46) Parallel accounts of this episode are found in Mark 12: 35-37, and Luke 20:41-44.

In these Scriptures, our Lord has done what Roman Catholic apologists say may not be done. He has clearly drawn a line between the human nature and the eternal nature of Christ. He has clearly established the fact that David is NOT the father of God, because he is NOT the father of the second person of the blessed trinity. He has clearly shown this distinction of natures to be a mystery – one the Jews of His day could not comprehend any better than the Roman Catholics or Christians of the 21st century. This mystery of the two fused but separate natures manifest in Christ finds another reference in the following excerpt from the Gospel of John. When confronted by the Jews and constrained to identify himself, John the Baptist’s response included this interesting disclosure: “For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.” (John 3:34) Certainly the Holy Spirit could not have been given to the Second Person of the trinity for He is part of that trinity. So the Holy Spirit that was given without measure was given only to the man Christ Jesus.

It stands to reason, then, that like King David – to whom fatherhood ONLY of the man Christ Jesus is attributed – Mary is the Mother ONLY of the man Christ Jesus. To prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, let us insert Mary’s name in place of King David’s in the previously cited Scriptures:

“While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of MARY. He saith unto them, How then doth MARY call him Lord, saying, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. (Luke 1:46, 47) If MARY then call him Lord, how is he her son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.”

To insist that Mary is Christotokos only and not theotokos is not to separate Jesus into a “heavenly Jesus” and an “earthly Jesus” as Roman Catholicism contends. It is merely recognizing what Jesus Himself made clear, that David was not the father of God, and by parallel reasoning, Mary was His earthly mother only, and not a Goddess or Queen of Heaven worthy of the title mother of God.

Because the Second Person of the blessed trinity is an eternal being having neither a beginning nor an ending, it was the man Christ Jesus who suffered as the second Adam on Calvary and died for the sins of the world. The Second Person of the trinity did not die, cannot die or be put to death. And it’s the man Christ Jesus – not the Second Person of the trinity – who is said Scripturally to be the one mediator between God and man. (1 Tim 2:5) He who is eternal, who could not and cannot die, could not be, and was not, born of the virgin.

Conclusion: Jesus Christ the man is the son of Mary. The Second Person of the Trinity is her God, not her son, for He did not originate in her womb.


Source: Heresies of Catholicism…The Apostate Church. by John Schroeder

The Baptist Muse Topsites The Forums at The Baptist Muse - Independent Fundamental Baptist Articles, Downloads, Forums, Topsites, and Much More! The Fundamental Top 500 The Baptist Top 1000