4/27/2005 06:45:00 PM|W|P|Dan Burrell|W|P|The 2004 elections brought a conservative sweep to much of the nation, but Mecklenburg County was not part of it. As a result, our County Commission came back under the control of liberal Democrats and the arrogant and extremist liberal Parks Helms re-assumed his position as chairman of the County Commission. It should be no surprise to any of us that in his first months back in his position, he has worked tirelessly to expand government and raise taxes. But this week, he announced another item on his agenda -- one that calls for economic and social conservatives to respond before its too late. Mr. Helms has announced that he wants to see "Partner's Benefits" extended to those involved in homosexual relationships. During a time when our community is dealing with the destructive consequences of the breakdown of the family and the stress of ever-rising local taxes, the best idea Mr. Helms can seem to come up with is to official recognize homosexual couples with benefits purchased by your and my tax dollars. This is an affront to every taxpayer and particularly those taxpayers who find homosexuality morally wrong. Christian and Social Conservatives should voice their opposition as this is yet another attempt by the radical homosexual community to impose their unhealthy and immoral lifestyle on people of morality and faith. We must not sit idly by while liberals and social manipulators seek to "re-define" what constitutes a family. Economic Conservatives should voice their opposition as this is yet another example of Big Brother expansion into areas that will lead to higher taxes and more spending. To subsidize these homosexual couples is not only legally questionable under North Carolina law, it is fiscally foolish due to the unhealthy nature of the relationship itself. This extension of benefits will cost our county millions over the next decade. Make no mistake, with a solid majority of like-minded Democrats on the County Commission, there is a good chance that this initiative will pass unless the citizens of this region speak up soon and loudly. That is why I am sending this email. We have a strategy in place that will "raise the volume" of protest against this action incrementally as the need arises. This email is a Call to Action which asks you to become personally involved in contacting the Mecklenburg County Commissioners to voice your opposition to extending benefits to homosexuals and unmarried partners of county employees. Here's what I am asking you to do: 1. Write a brief email to our county commissioners stating your opposition to extending benefits to the partners of unmarried and homosexual couples. This is very important: Please do not be rude, threatening or unkind. You don't need to type in all capitals and you don't need to quote the Scripture. What the Commissioners understand is VOTES. Every email equals a vote. They understand public pressure. Every email measures public sentiment. Paste and clip this list of the email addresses of our county commissioners and put it in the address box of your email: PHelms@helmshenderson.com, Bill@billjames.org, dan@votedanbishop.com, dumontclarke@mvalaw.com, 2woodard@bellsouth.net, normanam@aol.com, wirembert04@bellsouth.net, mroberts5@carolina.rr.com, jhpucket@bellsouth.net, 2. Please forward this email to everyone you can think of who might agree with our position. (Please do not violate your workplace policies on using company email lists or servers. It's never right to do wrong to do right.) Suggestions would be political lists, church lists, friends, etc. If you have a local blog, post this email here. When forwarding the email, try to remove the "FW:FW:fw:...." from the Subject Line as it often marks your email as spam or causes people to automatically "junk" the email. 3. Watch your email box for an email entitled "A Call to Action - Part 2". If it becomes necessary, we will offer another wave of protest against this initiative in a different form. Strategically, we are prepared to fight this as long as it takes. Sadly, this may end up costing the county commissioners who support this legislation politically and financially. It is really unnecessary for them to stir this up at this time when so many more important issues are at stake in our community. But if Mr. Helms is looking for a test of our strength and resolve, we need to make sure he gets a taste of it. Thank you for standing for the values that keep our families and our community strong, safe and conservative! NOTE: Some email servers require a comma between the names of multiple addresses and others permit a semi-colon. I have changed the semi-colons to comma's in mine to insure that they arrive as more servers accept those.|W|P|111464201011198564|W|P|A Call to Action for Charlotte Area Residents|W|P|jdpettus@gmail.com5/02/2005 10:19:00 AM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|Email is on the way.5/05/2005 07:35:00 AM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|Already sent..

Gene Z4/25/2005 01:26:00 PM|W|P|Dan Burrell|W|P|My blog is largely a “commentary”. Part of the job of a commentator is to provoke thought. If you never disagree with a commentator, then it might be a sign that you’re not thinking. And it is in the hope of provoking thought that I write these commentaries. It is in that vein that I broach the topic of politics and the church. Recently, Tennessee Senator, Senate majority leader and possible 2008 Presidential contender, Bill Frist, made quite a few headlines when he appeared, via tape, at a rally arranged by the Family Research Council and hosted by a large Baptist church in Louisville, Kentucky. The purpose of the rally was to educate the Christian right and to encourage support for a rules change within the US Senate which would prevent Democrats from filibustering President Bushes nominees to federal courts. Sometimes referred to as the “nuclear option”, this rare – though legal – maneuver would limit an occasionally used parliamentary procedure that requires a super-majority of 60 votes to permit passage of a bill or nomination. The filibuster continues until 60 votes (requiring senators from both parties to participate as the Republicans only have 55 votes and not all of them are dependable) are cast to limit the debate and permit a vote which then only requires a simple majority to pass or fail. The media and fringe religious groups with liberal agendas have decried the fact that Senator Frist is taking a political case to the church. In my opinion, Mr. Frist should have the right to speak anywhere and everywhere he so chooses and which is acceptable to him. I have no criticism whatsoever of his decision to address this significant legal and political issue publicly. I do, however, have some concerns about using a church to become a political venue. By raising this topic, I’m quite aware that I open the door to some personal criticism because I’m not afraid at all to make some rather strong statements from my own pulpit on matters of politics and politicians. We have a policy that allows any politician from any political party to greet our congregation when they are running for elected office. I believe that part of being a good Christian is to be a good citizen and part of being a good citizen is being an informed voter. I also believe that is it the privilege and prerogative of the Pastor to take positions and make statements regarding political matters of moral and community concern. But with all that said, I question the wisdom of turning the church into a political rally or a venue for politicians to come and make their case on a matter as fuzzy as Senate rules. While I am personally for the rules change as a last resort, this isn’t a clear-cut moral issue like slavery or the definition of marriage. This is about little less than politics. Yes, I understand the importance of having conservative judges who promote Biblical, traditional and family-friendly values. Yes, I think the Democratic minority is abusing a procedure in order to block otherwise qualified and good men and women from the bench. Yes, I think our nation needs to be informed of the issues. I just question whether or not it should be done in the church. I have two concerns regarding the use of churches as political centers for conservative causes. First, I don’t believe it is the mission of the church to be a political force. We are called to evangelize the world, disciple believers in the Scripture, fellowship with the family of God, minister to those in need and to worship God. I don’t believe we have to withdraw from the political process altogether, but it simply isn’t in the Biblical mandate of what the church was founded to do. Quite the opposite, Jesus Himself refused to embroil Himself in matters related to the government from taxation to slavery. He had a laser-like focus on what His Father had called Him to do and nothing distracted Him from that mission. A secondary concern grows out of the first. When the church becomes too intertwined with politics, we endanger our reputation and we invite political retaliation unnecessarily. The conservative or any single political party will one day be in the minority again. Politics is a dirty game. You can count on the fact that, given the chance, regulation, scrutiny and other forms of hostility will be part of the “payback” if we are perceived to be simply another political faction. I don’t mind scrutiny and hostility for things that are eternal in their origin. In my opinion, the rules of the Senate do not fall into that category. I wonder how many people will cease viewing the church as a conveyer of the Gospel and start thinking of her as an arm of some political ideology because we don’t take care to guard some basic principles of involvement with politics. Liberals have twisted what Jefferson was warning about when he penned that infamous line that called for a high wall of separation between church and state. However, evangelical Christians would be wise to remember and respect that the wall serves us as well. Knowing that such a wall has been suggested need not silence us from being personally active or vocal on moral issues that have worked their way into political positions. It should serve as a cautionary reminder that we serve a Higher Authority and His mandate for us as always been to “preach the GOSPEL” to every creature – not the GOP agenda.|W|P|111445017902632727|W|P|How Political Should the Church Be?|W|P|jdpettus@gmail.com5/02/2005 10:25:00 AM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|I can't stand politics. I understand the need I just hate the implementation used in today's society. I agree in what you have said Dr. Burrell and if we can focus on getting folks right with God they in turn can take that same truth to The Community, The County Commission, The Senate, and The World.5/19/2005 09:50:00 AM|W|P| Unknown|W|P|I believe Christians and the church should be a force that influences politicians and the law-making process. We shouldn't have to take a back seat like the ACLU wants us to. The 1st Amendment protects the church from the government. It does not prohibit the church from influencing the government.4/17/2005 09:58:00 AM|W|P|Dan Burrell|W|P|My kids, like most, are invited to multiple Birthday parties over the course of a year. Usually just prior, sometimes enroute, to these parties, we make a quick dash into the local Wal-Mart to spend $10-20 bucks on some over-rated piece of junk and another $5-7 bucks on a card, ribbon, paper and tapes just to cover it for the milli-second prior to the unwrapping. Within minutes, the paper, the present and the money are all forgotten. We've had the same sort of parties for my own kids. I've often guiltily marveled to see my kids get toys and games that I would NEVER have plunked down one red dime to get. I've also found those same items strewn about our house or left laying in the yard within days of the party -- broken, forgotten or both. Yesterday, something different happened. My two youngest were invited to a part at "Catherines". But on her invitation were these words -- "No Gifts, Please. Instead, we will receive any monetary contributions you'd like to send, to be sent to a school for Haitiaan children which is run by our missionary, Jean Marc Desiree. So, we sent a check for the usual amount with each of our kids. When they came back from the party, they were so excited. The described Catherine's enthusiasm and joy as well. The kids brought and gave a total of $450 to the Birthday party! Catherine was heard to exclaim...."That's 4 and a half kids that will get to go to a Christian school this year in Haiti (sponsorships are $100 per kid for books, uniforms, etc...) Wow...isn't that just a great idea? I wish I had thought of it. Not only was a missionary blessed, unknown kids will be experiencing a Christian education and American kids learned a lesson about really giving gifts that matter. In our age of materialism and excess, this was a grand lesson on selflessness and investment. What a great example this family was to our family and I hope to many others as well. Our kids so often don't appreciate what they have and have more than they need. To take the occasion of a Birthday party and put the focus on something spiritual and eternal is just about the greatest gift a parent can give to a child and one of the greatest lessons that could be taught to those who joined for the celebration. I'm glad my kids have friends like Catherine. Maybe we should "pass it forward."|W|P|111374686747853229|W|P|A Birthday Present for the Ages|W|P|jdpettus@gmail.com4/19/2005 01:30:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|Dr. Burell,

Wow what a great idea and what a way to teach your children the values of life. Love your blog keep up the work and keep writing God has given you a talent and you need to keep on using it for His Glory.4/23/2005 09:32:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|My daughter had her first "real" birthday party when she was in fourth grade. There were two things I insisted on doing:

Since most of the invitees were her classmates, we invited the entire class to the party. There were far too many party invitations given out in elementary school classrooms in front of me, while I was left to wonder why I hadn't received one, too. We didn't have money for gifts in my family, so those types of invites were usually ignored anyway. I couldn't bear the thought of one of her classmates feeling the same way I did as a third or fourth grader.

The second thing I insisted on was asking that each child bring a new gift to be donated to a homeless shelter or rescue mission program. All of the children got to see the gifts, and we donated them that year to children who needed far more than she did.

It's a great way to teach children to think about more than their own wants or neeeds.4/27/2005 08:47:00 AM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|This is such a great idea. I'm like the pastor, I wish I had thought of it. I know that the gifts my kids give and get are normally meaningless in a few hours of each party. Our family will definitely bring this suggestion at our next sons party. It's not about us!!4/14/2005 02:23:00 PM|W|P|Dan Burrell|W|P|I have been asked many times, in the past few weeks if I believe that Pope John Paul II is in heaven. In some ways, I've been amazed at how many times I've been asked the question and at times, I've been surprised that I would be asked such a question by the person who actually asked it. (I would have thought they would have reached their own conclusion -- one way or the other.) I would take no pleasure in speaking ill of the dead and that will not be intent in this article. Whether or not one – anyone – is in heaven or hell is too heavy a topic for one to thoughtfully treat with anything less than respectful gravity. There are many positive things that can be said by Pope John Paul II who passed away earlier this month. He was obviously an effective leader. I believe he was an earnest man. He was certainly a devoted person. While a bit inflated by recent accounts, his role in ending the tyranny of communism in Eastern Europe was valuable. It appears that he endured physical suffering with great patience and humilty. I appreciate his vocal support of pro-life issues ranging from abortion to euthanasia. I believe he was very right to denounce the decadence of Western culture in general and American materialism in particular. But beyond the kind of life, the Pope lived is a deeper question -- did He teach and believe the Truth of God which allowed him entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven when he died. I'm not particularly eager to address this question so close to his actual death and funeral, butI believe that considering the obvious questions many have and the confusion some have created, it would be foolish for me to wait to uncover clear doctrinal lines that have been sadly smudged, neglected and at times, even obliterated over the past few weeks by many so-called "evangelical" or "Christian" leaders. In 1517, Martin Luther, a Catholic Monk who had committed the “horrific” sin of actually reading and studying the book from which he had allegedly been preaching, nailed a document containing 95 theses (statements or declarations) to the door of the Wittenburg Castle Church in Germany. The specific issue that had lead to Luther’s state of disgust with what he had been teaching and his personal exploration of what was really right was the Catholic official, Tetzel’s, selling of indulgences to get people out of purgatory. ("As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, The soul from purgatory springs!") With each pound of the hammer used to drive the nail in the old wood of the castle church door, he set in motion, what is known to this day, as the Protestant Reformation. While most Baptists do not trace their spiritual heritage back to that moment in history, many evangelicals do. No one can dispute that Luther set off a theological bomb whose percussions continue to reverberate to this day. Out of that reformation came four significant doctrinal creeds which, to this day, [should] distinguish orthodox evangelical and fundamentalist Christians from those who practice Roman Catholicism. Those creeds are these:  Sola Scriptura – Scripture Alone  Sola Gratia – Grace Alone  Sola Fide – Faith Alone  Sola Christi – Christ Alone I, cannot, in one simple article, teach the whole of doctrinal differences between orthodox evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity and Catholicism, but let me say that the differences are no minor things. The blood of millions of martyrs slain at the hands of Catholic leaders and their sycophants during the horrific European inquisitions cries out from the soil of dungeons and coliseums and village streets and public squares and reminds us that these are no minor things. The great translators, who fought and died in order to provide a comprehensible translation of the Word of God into the hands of non-Latin speaking common people, men such as Wycliffe and Tyndale, make it possible for us to hold our Bibles in our laps tonight because they wouldn’t bow before Catholic authorities who wanted to keep access to God’s Word limited to their church elites. The great theologians and courageous voices of the reformation who often paid for their insolence against the Popes and Cardinals and their hand-picked Kings and Queens, people like Savonarola and Huss and Zwingli, certainly knew that it was right and noble and Biblical to raise one’s energy against evil doctrines that lead people to hell rather than heaven. So it was with sadness and bewilderment and no small amount of disgust that I have heard and watched a litany of evangelical leaders, high profile Christians and publications ranging from Billy Graham, to James Dobson, to the Family Research Council, to President Bush, to the editor of Christianity Today make comments that ranged from blatant falsehoods to emotional muddiness which would lead those that heard their words to infer that there really isn’t any significant theological differences between evangelicals and Catholics, that even if the Pope believed what he taught to the point of his death that he still made it to heaven, that in the end it is the good works of good men which provide access to eternal life and other such error. Let me state now, I do not know whether or not Pope John Paul II is in heaven or hell. You and I can’t know that. We are not his judges. I will say that I hope, with all my heart that he is not in hell. There is no one who is living or has ever lived (short of Satan himself), upon whom I would genuinely wish the horrors of hell. But I will tell you this, according to the Word of God, anyone from the Pope to Terri Shiavo to Dan Burrell, who believes that the Word of God is insufficient alone, that Christ is not enough alone, that grace alone through faith alone is not adequate for eternal life does not possess eternal life. If you can get to heaven believing that we need more than Scripture, more than Jesus, need the intervention of any man from Pope to priest to pastor, that we must insert our works and rituals and traditions into or alongside of grace in order to lay claim to the precious gift of the gospel, then I should resign from Northside Baptist Church as pastor, we should lay fire to every building on our 185-acre church campus and we should disband immediately. To those who cry out that good people should and can go to heaven, those that suffer must go to heaven, those who are pious or devout or even religious simply can’t miss eternal life, I would point out to you that the Scripture tells me that my greatest claim to righteousness is as filthy rags before a perfect God and that there is NONE righteous, no not one. If I and everyone of us on this planet were to get what we deserve, we’d already been in hell. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. The moment you add one work, one effort, one sacrament, one action, one requirement, anything to grace, it ceases to be grace – it is polluted and made of no effect. The Scripture alone teaches that Christ alone paid the price and offers it to us through His grace alone if we will accept it in faith alone. Whether or not we think it is fair, whether or not we think someone is worthy or unworthy to receive it, whether or not we “want” to become a part of the process, whether or not the whole world thinks that there’s another way or a better way or multiple ways, if we are to use Scripture alone as our source of confidence and the foundation of our faith, we can draw no other conclusion – God’s simple plan of salvation precludes any efforts we bring to it. He paid the price, He calls whom He will, He makes it available to all, He established the terms and it matters not one whit what we think of them. We must simply, by faith alone, accept them. I want to take us back to the first time Scripture records efforts to add to God’s plan for grace alone and faith alone. Let’s look at the debate in the church of Galatia found in the New Testament book of Galatians. Paul’s letter to the church at Galatia is a very tense book of the Bible. From beginning to end, there is a tone of urgency, even frustration, as Paul corrects the error in this church and drives deeply a stake for the true gospel. Paul had brought the gospel to the people of that area personally. He references his points repeatedly which he had made during his previous visits. It was a message of salvation by grace alone. Repeatedly he reminds them that in salvation God declares the sinner righteous. The term for this is "justification." God doesn't justify a man by simply overlooking his sin; He is Himself righteous, and He doesn’t save by pretending that sinners are really righteous. Neither does He give a pronouncement of righteousness on the basis of any sinner's own efforts or accomplishments. God does not tell the sinner that if he proves himself good enough, then he can be saved. The reason for this is obvious: by definition, sinners can never be good enough to be considered righteous. Whatever a sinner may do that is good and however many good things he may accomplish, at the end of it all he is still a sinner. Unless he can do perfectly all that God requires and without any exception throughout his entire life, he deserves punishment and is under the curse of the law according to Gal.3:10. This is why "no man is justified by the law" (vs. 11); he simply can't obey the law completely enough. But before you get discouraged, there’s good news that awaits us: "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us" (3:13). The Lord Jesus Christ came and in place of the sinner endured the law's penalty and condemnation. Christ, the sinless one, bore the punishment due to sinners so that sinners could go free. God's justice was not side-stepped; it was upheld completely. The sinner is punished – only vicariously, in the person of his Substitute - Jesus. This is why justification is only "by faith" (3:11). Because there is no hope of us making ourselves good enough by our own efforts, God offers what we don’t deserve, - salvation - to us freely -- by grace. He doesn’t require that we show ourselves to be good enough. He only requires that we trust Christ alone, Who is good enough. Trusting in Him our sin is His, and His righteousness is ours. This is what is called in the Bible the term "imputation" -- our sin is imputed (or charged) to Christ, and His righteousness is imputed to us. There is this marvelous exchange, and it is made only by faith. This is the very heart of the Christian message and what we call the gospel. Simply put, it is in this way alone that we may be declared righteous before God. Salvation is by grace through Christ alone, and it is received only by faith. His work, not ours. No boasting is possible because we got what we didn’t deserve. The problem in the church at Galatia and what had Paul so disturbed was that some false teachers had infiltrated the church and had begun to teach a false gospel which polluted the message of grace. You can find them in Galatians 5:2-4. "Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you allow yourselves to be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become cut off from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." Apparently, these teachers had come in saying that circumcision was also required for salvation. They were OK with Paul’s message of grace through Christ, but it just wasn’t enough according to them. He had left out this one detail: unless a man is circumcised, he cannot be saved. He must keep this part of the law also. This was a sort of “merger” between Jewish custom from the Judiastic religious law and the Gospel that Paul preached. Note that this was a very severe matter to Paul. He declared that anyone who believes this, he says, is "cut off from Christ" (Gal.5:4). You might very sincerely believe that by being circumcised you are gaining salvation, but Paul says that by adding that additional step you become excluded from salvation entirely. This, he says, is "a different gospel" which will bring a man only to be eternally cursed (Gal.1:6-8). You might be inclined to think – wow, this is such a small thing. It’s really only a “ritual” or a “tradition”, but Paul recognized that it was much, much more. Let’s make sure we don’t miss another key point. There is no indication at all that these false teachers disagreed with Paul on any of the fundamentals of the Christian faith -- the trinity, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, His resurrection, His substitutionary atonement, etc. The only difference they had with Paul was this one word: AND. They believed that they were justified by grace and circumcision. I just want to point out that Billy Graham mentioned in one interview that he believed that the Pope was in heaven because he believed in Christ, the cross and the resurrection. Well, so did these guys and Paul said they were “cut off”. Scripture tells us that even the Devils and demons believe and tremble, but let me assure you, there is no Beelzebub Blvd. on the streets of gold. They did not believe that we are justified by faith alone. This is how Paul saw it in Gal.5:2-4. He implies fairly clearly in those verses, "If you add that little word and, you are no Christian. Salvation is received by faith alone." So why was Paul being so picky? Why did he get upset over such a little word? They had so much that is right, and all they add is this one requirement which was a part of their heritage, a national custom and in many ways a tradition – was it really all that bad? The answer would be “YES” – and I would add, it was all that bad then and its all that bad NOW. In a nutshell, adding even one requirement to the terms of salvation makes salvation come by human effort, and that is a different gospel. If justification is by human merit, then it is not by faith. If it is by works, then it is not by grace. If it is by our working, then it cannot be by Christ's. In case there’s any doubt, Paul takes it a step further when he writes in verse 21 of chapter 2, "If righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain" (Gal.2:21). Did He not in dying for us pay the price of our lawlessness? And if He did, then what is all this talk about our law keeping? The Christian gospel has a better message than that: it teaches us that Christ has kept the law for us and in our place bore our punishment for breaking the law. And if this is why He died and if this is how salvation comes to us, then to add anything to the terms of justification is to deny the Christian gospel altogether. Add anything, he says, and you are "cut off from Christ." The gospel that Paul preached allowed no additions. Let’s cover a couple of examples of where Catholicism and Orthodox Evangelical/Fundamental doctrine conflict: One of the first is over the issue of Mary and her role in the Kingdom of God. Throughout history, there has been a strain of religion that worships a “Mother God” and her “Son God”. The Catholic church has, since its earliest days sought to be “universal” church in the World (thus it’s name – catholic) and in order to accomplish that goal, you will find that there are “traditions” of many religious imbedded in her practices. An Encyclical from Pope Leo XIII reads, "Nothing according to the will of the Supreme Father comes to us except through Mary, so that, as nobody can approach the Supreme Father except through the Son, similarly nobody can approach Christ except through the Mother." A Look at Mother Worship in History Babylon - Rhea and Ninus aka Sermiramis and Nimrod Egypt - Isis and Osiris India - Isi and Iswara Asia - Cybele and Deoius Rome - Fortune and Jupiter-puer Orient - Shing Moo and her child A Look at Mary in Scripture > At the announcement (Luke 1:26-38) > At the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:15-19) > At the Temple (Matt. 12:46-50) > At the Wedding at Cana (John 2:1-7) > At the Cross (John 19:25-27) What Mary Was • She was a virgin • She was blessed • She was a sinner What Mary Wasn’t 1. She is not a part of God 2. She is not our representative to God 3. She is not a co-Redeemer 4. She does not intercede on our behalf with Jesus 5. She is not to be an object of worship For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; I Timothy 2:5 Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12 Other Examples… There are some in both religions that argue that we’re really not that much apart, that things have changed, that we agree on the essentials, that the Catholic Church has changed from the days of indulgences and the corruption and heresy against which Luther railed.. But has the Catholic Church really changed? Well, according to the church itself, the Church is semper idem -- "always the same." In addition, Vatican II, the most recent church council, not only restated its doctrinal position but it openly declared its agreement with all previous councils, such as Trent, which pronounced such severe "anathemas" (cut off) on those who teach justification by faith alone. But to answer our question we should look at one of the church's most recent official publication, Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), which John Paul II described as "a sure norm for teaching the faith." The following are quotes from this catechism. 968. Her [Mary's] role in relation to the church and to all humanity goes still further. In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace. 969. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix." 1129. The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation". 1213. .... Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: 'Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.' 1227. .... Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies. 1365. In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 1366. The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is a memorial, and because it applies its fruit. 1367. The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. 1414. As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God. 1422. Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from God's mercy for the offense committed against him. 1424. It is called the sacrament of Forgiveness, since by the priest's sacramental absolution God grants the penitent "pardon and peace" It is called the sacrament of Reconciliation because it imparts to the sinner the love of God who reconciles. 1446. The Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as 'the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace. 1459. .... Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must 'make satisfaction for' or 'expiate' his sins. This satisfaction is also called 'penance.' It is plainly evident that the Roman Church has not changed at all on these things. She has only reaffirmed them. There’s one last area I simply must address before I can feel like I’ve said enough on this topic. Today’s culture has put a very high value on “getting along” and “peace” and “tolerance”. I want you to know that there are few things in the world sweeter than Biblical unity. I will also tell you that there are few things more dangerous than unbiblical unity. I want to get along with other people…I really do. But there is a limit to unity. Take a look at II Corinthians 6:14-17 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. Several years ago (1994), some horrifically misguided evangelical leaders ranging from Chuck Colson, to Bill Bright, Pat Robertson and even, very shockingly J. I. Packer sat down with some Catholic scholars and began working on a statement of unity which was eventually published under the name of “Evangelicals and Catholics Together.” There were scores of evangelical signatories who originally signed, though fewer signed the second document that was produced and a few of the original signers eventually regretted and recanted signing the first one. But what it didn’t accomplish “officially” it has continued to influence “theoretically” in that there has been progressive dialogue by more liberal evangelicals to the idea of at least a limited ecumenical unity between Evangelicals and Catholics. By the way, this was a major agenda item for Pope John Paul II. He desired that the disenfranchised “brethren” would be brought back into the fold of the “Catholic” church. They have successfully muddied, for many, the clear doctrinal distinctions that exist between evangelical Christianity and Catholicism. Let me make this statement clearly and I’d recommend that you write it down or memorize it… Compromise is the lifeblood of politics, but it is the death knell of theology. We can’t all be right. The highest virtues are not peace and unity; they are authority and accuracy. We can’t have Truth without them. Truth doesn’t evolve – it just IS. Truth doesn’t grow, change, develop, unfold or progress. It is uncovered, discovered, revealed, comprehended and applied. But Truth is static, not dynamic. So here’s why we must resist the emotional mushiness that is leading to theological compromise through ecumenical associations: 1. We are forbidden by Scripture to align ourselves with those who deny Scripture in word of deed. 2. We are commanded by Scripture to evangelize those who do not know Christ in terms of a born-again conversion whereupon He is their Only Lord and Savior. 3. We do not need the power of association, political unions, majority influence or ecclesiastical momentum more than we need the power of God which come only through obedience to His Word and will. 4. Uniting ecclesiastically is not necessary to accomplish civil and political objectives and the rationale used (ends justify the means) is humanistic and relativistic in its philosophy. 5. It legitimizes heresy and elevates unscriptural tradition to the same level of sound doctrine and Holy Scripture. 6. By legitimizing errors to the level of truth, additional entanglements have the potential to discourage or forbid efforts to distinguish heresy from truth which is sometimes called proselytizing. 7. Such ecumenical unity is a sign of end-time developments and combined with the recent trends of 24 hour news coverage, total global information saturation and the interesting phenomenon of hyper-emotional populist grieving over icons should be seen as further evidence that we are nearing the end of this age. 8. We should be wary of joining forces with other non-Biblical, but religious institutions for political, secular, business and other purposes because of the potential they have to flavor us, rather than to have them be converted by and to Truth. 9. Pure Scriptural truth divides; the Holy Spirit unites only those who can agree on Truth. The work of the Holy Spirit is to provide unity among the believers of Scripture, not among the rest of creation. 10. We must be wary of the spirit of emotionalism that permeates this current culture wherein we will compromise Truths for the sake of being perceived as kind or reasonable or tolerant, for the sake of being accepted, for the sake of maintaining influence, for the sake of reaching other, less eternal, objectives. Can a Catholic go to heaven? Yes. But they must reject the unbiblical teachings of the official Roman Catholic Church from the Pope to the Priests and let the Word of God, Jesus Christ, His Grace and Their Faith alone be the pillars of their salvation. I'm sorry that the Roman Catholic adherent, Terri Schiavo, suffered in her vegetative state for so many years. I realize that the Pope was respected and admired by a huge portion of this globe's population. Everyday, good people -- who practice a religion that does not recognize Jesus Christ at all, let alone sound Biblical doctrine, -- die and go into eternity. But the issue isn't, never has been and never will be a matter of "goodness" or worthiness. It is connected to suffering, devotion, or duty. It's all about God's amazing grace! Copyright 2005 by Dan Burrell. No part of this article may be reproduced or used with the expressed permission of the author. For republication permission, contact the author at dburrell@northsidebapt.org.|W|P|111350416039649231|W|P|Aren't Catholics and Evangelicals All Headed in the Same Direction?|W|P|jdpettus@gmail.com4/21/2005 12:54:00 AM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|This isn't a blog post, this is a small research paper... anyway, many thanks for the obvious effort and the informed, insightful commentary on the situation and Catholicism. Much appreciated...6/30/2005 01:24:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|I believe the response from newcatholic is very instructive. Even the best of us can get our facts wrong, and we should be very careful when we make categorical broadsides in our theological discussions. No, we must tolerate no compromise of God's truth. But I disagree that Chuck Colson and other religious leaders were "misguided" in attempting to find common ground in our theological identities. Although we must be united in the essentials, we must be willing to allow grace in the non-essentials. The key, of course, is how we define those terms. But if a Catholic brother or sister comes up to me and professes eternal security by having personally appropriated the finished work of Christ on the cross, I'm not going to cross-examine him or her over the fine details of eschatology or the merits of infant baptism. We need to reserve all this zealous energy for our dealings with the world, not with each other.7/04/2005 08:34:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|Phil,
I'm a Roman Catholic and I totally agree with you when you wrote that, "we must tolerate no compromise of God's truth." However, the relevant issue here is defining God's truth. Although finding common ground is not inherently wrong per-se, developing a sense of religious relativism should be avoided at all cost.
You wrote that, "But if a Catholic brother or sister comes up to me and professes eternal security by having personally appropriated the finished work of Christ on the cross, I'm not going to cross-examine him or her over the fine details of eschatology or the merits of infant baptism." I appreciate your charity in extending your hand out to Catholics as your brothers and sisters. I must inform you though that once a Catholic professes, under the reformed theological understanding, "eternal security" and an "imputed alien (Christ's) righteousness", they are at once denying Roman Catholic teaching, and therefore are in heresy. Scripture is clear on the fact that we can fall from the faith and lose our salvation. Mt. 7:21-23; 10:22,28,33; 24:12; Mk. 9:43; 10:21-23; 13:22; Lk. 8:13; 12:43-46; Jn. 12:47-48; 15:6; Acts 13:43,46; 20:29-30; Rm. 2:6; 8:12-13; 11:20-22; 1 Cor. 3:17; 4:5; 6:8-9; 9:27-10:6; 10:11-12; 15:1-2; 2Cor. 5:20-6:2; 11:3; 12:21-13:5; Gal. 5:19-21; 6:7-9; Eph. 5:5-6; Phil. 3:10-16; Col. 1:21-23; 1 Thess. 4:1-8; 2 Thess. 2:13-15; 3:6,14; 1 Tim. 4:1; 5:15; 6:10-19; 6:20-21; 2 Tim. 1:15; 2:12; 2:17; 4:10; 4:16; Titus 1:16; 3:10; Heb. 2:1; 3:1,6; 3:12-14; 4:1; 4:11-13; 4:14; 6:4-6; 6:11-12; 10:26-27; 10:25-28; 12:1,3; 12:14-17; 12:25,29; James 1:14-16; 1:21-22; 2:13-14; 4:4; 5:9; 1 Peter 4:17-18; 5:8; 2 Peter 1:9; 2:20-22; 3:14-17; 1 John 2:24-26; 2:28; 2 John 8; 3 John 9-11; Jude 5; Rev. 2:5; 2:10; 2:16; 2:23; 2:26; 3:3; 3:11; 3:16; 3:21; 16:15; 22:12; 22:19. As you can see, Scripture does not teach "eternal security," but "obedience to the faith," Rm. 1:5. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that, "For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God. Not of works, that no man may glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them." Eph. 2:8-10. And, "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only but much more now in my absence) with fear and trembling work out your salvation. For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will." Phil. 2:12-13. "If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be anathama." Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon 1.
God Bless,
Alex Greco7/25/2005 09:22:00 AM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|Deception reigns Supreme.
One can not try to even attempt to tell a BRAINWASHED person anything, YOU may as well talk to a DEAD tree stump.
A Roman CATHOLIC, In a church which is NOT CHRISTS church but rather SATANS, has the VEIL wrapped so tightly around their BRAIN, its cutting off all power of circulation to the soul.
DECEPION by the DEVIL. the author of confusion, ( the Roman Catholic church), gets inside the soul so deeply, it MAY never come out, unless, ONE is TRULY repentful and they want to KNOW truth.
A Roman CAtholic feels ( the devil tells them) they have truth.
They call Christ their SAVIOR, YET they continue to TRY to save themselfs.
A REAL insult to GOD.
So if thye can do the SAVING, and Christs finished work on the cross wasnt enough, GOD will keave them be.
OH yes they are saved alright, they are saved, from EVER going to HEAVEN.
THEY have been well PICKLED and preserved by SATAN for HELL.
ONE cant have it both ways. THERE is ONLY ONE TRUTH, if they can save themself, Christ didnt have to die on the cross at all.
God as JESUS FATHER, does not take it lightly, when one SPITS in the face of his son, I WOULDNT either.
So go ahead, try to add to ( THE one you so ridiculously call YOUR SAVIOR ( your blinded, YOU dont even have the ability ( with veil tighly wrapped around brain) to see truth.
Just remember this tho, GOD says to those who SEEK REAL truth, they will FIND IT.
TRY unwrapping the wrapped up brain and tied up tainted heart you have and seek REAL truth.
THE bible says THOSE that love me WILL OBEY me.
A Roman Catholic isnt obeying CHRIST, but their FATHER, the FATHER of deceptive RELIGION, the DEVIL
PRAY for SALVATION.
Bev ODay7/25/2005 09:34:00 AM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|also, A Roman Catholic says, they dont work to get to heaven.
So sorry to say RomanCatholis YOU MOST certainly do.
Paul said adding something you do, ( which is waht the Roman CAtholic church teaches you MUST do, thru any HUMAN effort of your own, will get you a one way ticket straight into hell, IN GAl. 2-21, it says if RIGHTEOUS comes thru the LAW< things the Roman CAtholic church reguires you to do *( which is law) than Christ died in vain, get it, in vain.
PAul told those who believe in all the correct things but added circumsion, they would be cult off from heaven.
its called GRACe, learn what GRACE means, YOU add to grace and SPIT in GODS face. YOU WILL BE CUT OFF.
Salvation is not what WE do but WHO we have.
YOU do NOTHING to get saved, Christ alone does it.

To say you dont do anything, is like talking to a baby.
OF course you do, yOU FOLLOW required LAWS set up by the church, PLEASE take off the blinders. We have been freed from the law.

Being a Roman Catholic tells the world, YOU are trying to be made right by following churches laws.
When saved by CHRISTS blood alone, I DONT HAVE to FOLLOW any mans laws for salvation.
I follow Christ alone.
So you are LYING to not only people but your lying to yourself.
YOU dont put YOUR 100% trust in Christ alone to be your SAVIOR, YOUR trusting in a church, a POPE a PRIEST. That is 100% TRUTH.
YOUR will be cut OFF from God doing that, yOU can count on it.7/25/2005 09:38:00 AM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|Sorry for typos, I am waiting to see how many will try to correct me on on my typing as a way to side step the real issues here. That happens all the time. ITS called shifting, taking the focus off the truth, so go for it, it will clearly show what your attempting to do, and that is NOT FACE up to truth.4/06/2005 05:34:00 PM|W|P|Dan Burrell|W|P|I realize it's been a couple of weeks since I last updated this blog. I wanted to assure my readers that I haven't died or quit blogging or dashed off to the Vatican to stand in line to see the Pope's remains. Last week was Spring Break and my family and I took a few days off to spend together. Where we "retreat" has no land phone line and very limited access to the internet. (Which adds to its appeal considering that I typically exceed 100 email messages a day.) Last week-end, we were involved in the wedding of a very special friend. This week, I've been trying to catch up from last week. But never fear, I shall return. Indeed, I am percolating and ruminating extensively on the deaths of Terri Schiavo and Pope John Paul II. I actually have wanted to wait until the initial wave of prurient interest and media-driven hysteria had died out somewhat, but I'm really struggling to keep from laying out my thoughts a bit prematurely. Needless to say, I'm running the gamut from mild irritation to deep consternation to seething revulsion to bewildered confusion over the whole phenomenon of "universal mourning." I don't remember anything quite like this since the one-two death of Diana and Mother Teresa in the late 1990's. But there are deeper concerns of a theological nature that I really want to address and will do so once I can organize my thoughts at least somewhat cohesively and without some of my own personal emotion clouding what I really want to say. So....blog readers....come back in a few days and I'll give you something to think about or fight about or send me nasty email over. As for now, I must get back to the pile of work which cascades from my desk.|W|P|111282374501214968|W|P|No, I haven't died...|W|P|jdpettus@gmail.com4/13/2005 08:33:00 AM|W|P| Cindy Swanson|W|P|Good to see you back, Dan!