Your session will end in  seconds due to inactivity. Click here to continue using this web page.

Ecumenical Jihad

Monday, February 22, 2010

First, listen to this 9-minute clip:

Launch Player  |  Download  |  Full Sermon

Here's the topic for today's discussion:

Two questions for this discussion:

First, what are biblical priorities at stake in the ecumenical question?

Second, what drives evangelical leaders to compromise traditionally evangelical priorities in the quest for some form of unity?


Make a Comment    |     Comments (52)

Click here to subscribe to comments without commenting.

You have 3000 characters remaining for your comment.

*Note: All comments must be approved before being posted

Submit

#1  Posted by Douglas Grogg  |  Monday, February 22, 2010at 6:56 PM

What biblical priorities are at stake in the ecumenical question? The authority of the scriptures is being put into question. Satan deceived Eve in the garden and Satan is deceiving multitudes of souls in the present time in which we live.

What drives evangelical leaders to compromise traditionally evangelical priorities in the quest for some form of unity? To put it bluntly, it is a deceived mind and heart that is the root of all of their motives. Perhaps they are being driven by an attempt to justify themselves before God by compromising traditionally evangelical priorities in the quest for some form of unity in the false belief that they are somehow going to usher in the kingdom of God by their own efforts.

The gospel as revealed in the scriptures is at stake. Clearly they do not understand the gospel. It is clear that they have never experienced the new birth. The New Covenant (Testament) was revealed to Jeremiah when God said “I will put my law within them and on their heart I will write it” (See Jeremiah 31:31-33) and to Ezekiel when God said “And I shall give them one heart, and shall put a new spirit within them. And I shall take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances, to do them. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God. Ezekiel 11:19-20 (see also Ezekiel 36:25-27)

Peter spoke of the new birth when he declared “you have been born again not of perishable seed but imperishable, that is through the living and abiding Word of God…And this is the word which was preached to you.” 1 Peter 1:23-25 The proclamation of the Word of God is the means by which God, in His infinite wisdom, has decreed that the new birth is to take place. If that very Word of God is now being put into question we know that the assault comes from the enemy of men’s souls. These men are instruments of Satan and need to be exposed as such. His Unworthy Slave

#2  Posted by Shauna Bryant  |  Monday, February 22, 2010at 8:10 PM

The ones who won't go along with this "Ecumenical Jihad" will be persecuted.....it's easy to see how that "By Peace He shall destroy many"

Staying true to the Word of God NO MATTER WHAT!

Shauna Bryant

#3  Posted by Kurt Hutchison  |  Tuesday, February 23, 2010at 11:21 AM

My take: the Biblical priorities are separation as commanded in scripture, and the purity of the Gospel.

I don't know for sure why someone would compromise in these ways, but I see it boiling down to two things. Either they are deceived (misunderstand scripture), or they lack faith (in God) and in effect their faith is in men. The quest for unity is about the quest for power (or effectiveness) if you will, power to save the world, the environment, or whatever.

If my categories are correct, the deceived position is the more honest of the two, it retains loyalty to scripture at least in their minds. This position is also likely open to correction from scripture.

The faith(less) position forces one to compromise scripture and all the not-good that entails. This position can masquerade as faithful, but will refuse correction. In their minds they are doing what is right. And in the final analysis, scripture is not their highest authority.

#4  Posted by Robert Lombardi  |  Tuesday, February 23, 2010at 11:22 AM

It's funny how the author of Ecumenical Jihad talks about everyone coming together, but what he has really created is a new religion which happens to include the Pope and Mary. I wonder if they agree to his plan. Can you imagine, Mary, the mother of Jesus, embracing people who reject her son and spread lies about him so that she can fight a war of morality together with them. It's like telling the king he's not the king, and then telling him how to make his kingdom better. Ouch. I can't imagine Mary agreeing to this.

#5  Posted by Douglas Grogg  |  Tuesday, February 23, 2010at 12:07 PM

Comment deleted by user.
#6  Posted by Douglas Grogg  |  Tuesday, February 23, 2010at 12:09 PM

Comment deleted by user.
#7  Posted by Douglas Grogg  |  Tuesday, February 23, 2010at 12:11 PM

Kirt, I believe that your comment “If my categories are correct, the deceived position is the more honest of the two, it retains loyalty to scripture at least in their minds. This position is also likely open to correction from scripture” has biblical merit. I have two points to make. First, the Greek word deceived (#4105 in the Strong’s) can be rendered anywhere from mistaken, deceived, to gone astray. Notice the progression. It starts from simply being mistaken and ultimately ends up being led or gone astray. And second, God said “I will put my law within them and on their heart I will write it” Jeremiah 31:33. If the individual has in fact been born again they will receive correction from the Word of God because God has put that law (Word if you will) within them and God has written that law upon their heart.

Peter was an instrument of Satan on more than one occasion. Our Master rebuked him on one occasion, see Mark 8:33 and Paul rebuked him on another, see Galatians 2:11. But notice Peter’s response in 2 Peter 3:15 when he refers to Paul as “our beloved brother Paul”. –His Unworthy Slave

#8  Posted by Landon Webb  |  Tuesday, February 23, 2010at 12:52 PM

Comment deleted by user.
#9  Posted by George Frey  |  Tuesday, February 23, 2010at 1:27 PM

To the second question. Unbelief given opportunity. I would need to write a book to fully explore this issue, but I perceive that John considers it a salvation issue first of all and the deception of the elect if that were possible. If so then I agree. Perhaps we are seeing the exposer of the tares among us to some degree?

#10  Posted by Josué Morissette  |  Tuesday, February 23, 2010at 1:43 PM

People who preach or push this agenda are always people who of course have a weak or falty theology. It is very common for religious people to agree with this regrouping of all religions. Although they might be right with the fact that all religions lead to the same conclusion, evangilicals who refrain from warning people about this, or worst agree with such a movement, are guilty of a great sin. For in doing so they do not glorify God for who he is (Romans 1:21) and render the sacrifice of Jesus-Christ meaningless. There are more and more documents, meetings and books in favor of such a movement, and everytime I am saddened to see some of the names that support or sign-up to these things. So many people are being lead astray, especially by huge organisation that have been around for a very long time. To tell someone that a certain, very prominent evangilical is wrong on such an important issue is very difficult to accpet for those who have been following that person for so long. Too many people are more preocupied by outward apperances, than by the content. There is no use of befriending religious people (2 Corinthians 6:14, Ephesians 5:11) for the sake of being friends and then maybe get around to sharing the true meaning of the Gospel, assuming that they are able to do so. These poeple need to be brought to light and for most of them they have been made aware of the Truth and have rejected it, at which point our strongest tool is prayer that God may, in his infinite grace, open their heart to the one and only Truth. But I do rejoice in the fact that this issue is exposing who is a true teacher faithful to the Bible and who is not. And thanks to pastor John MacArthur and to the Grace to You staff for being so faithful to the word of God and only His word.

#11  Posted by Joe Ayala  |  Tuesday, February 23, 2010at 3:36 PM

Okay I am feeling woosy, can anyone give me some insight into what is happening to J.I. Packer and his compromisation?

#12  Posted by Mary Elizabeth Palshan  |  Tuesday, February 23, 2010at 3:46 PM

Dear Joe:

I have wondered this to about J.I. Packer. After all he wrote "Knowing God," it is kind of disconcerting, to say the least.

#13  Posted by Robert Lombardi  |  Tuesday, February 23, 2010at 3:50 PM

J.I. Packer and Colson started doing the Evangelicals and Catholics Together thing and it's been commonly viewed as a comprimise on the gospel and justification by faith. Sproul, MacArthur and others have expressed open rebuke of this group. I don't know much more about this group so I'll need to do more research myself. But I've heard both Sproul and now MacArthur express strong opposition to Evangelicals and Catholics Together. I was further suprised to see Wikipedia list the Southern Baptist Convention as signee's to this group. Ouch. What's going on here?

#14  Posted by Karla Tadler  |  Tuesday, February 23, 2010at 3:57 PM

Love hearing the Truth being preached!! We just visited a church last Sunday, in fact, that did practice ecumenism with Catholicism. Needless to say, continued the search for a good church and praise God we found one via TMS.edu/alumni!!! PTL!!! Keep up the diligent, biblical work, that is helping so many people like myself, and service to the Lord. As you know, that is what matters in the end! (1 Cor 10:31; 2 Cor 5:10; Phil 3:14; 1 Jn 2:3-6)

#15  Posted by Karla Tadler  |  Tuesday, February 23, 2010at 3:59 PM

Oh! And I'm really glad that who sponsored the Amsterdam meeting was disclosed!

#16  Posted by Mary Elizabeth Palshan  |  Tuesday, February 23, 2010at 4:12 PM

Thanks, Robert. I know that much, too (concerning the ECT and the Manhattan Declaration), but I am wondering if he is falling away from the faith? We need to pray for him no matter what the situation, along with Chuck Colson.

#17  Posted by Diana Yochem  |  Tuesday, February 23, 2010at 4:22 PM

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. Galations 1:10

Those of us who believe the truth of the gospel are already united with one another, the world just doesn't like that. Therefore, aren't we wedceiving others who fall short of the Glory of God when we compromise traditionally evangelical priorities in the quest for some form of unity?

#18  Posted by James Mickle  |  Tuesday, February 23, 2010at 4:23 PM

What are these people, Colson, Packer and others, thinking! They know better; at least I thought they did. What parts of the Gospel don't they believe and why? I didn't know who J.I. Packer was until today. I read about him on John Piper's website; a reference to his defense of Calvinism and the true Gospel. I also got a letter from Billy Graham's Decision magazine that had what looked like the Who's Who of "truth" warriors on the return area of the envelope. Packer was there, along with Piper, MacArthur, etc. Now, we got this.....? If the statistic of only 14% of "born again" believers read their bibles more that once a week, therein lays the problem!!

#19  Posted by James Mickle  |  Tuesday, February 23, 2010at 4:46 PM

Ahh, I spell like a 5 year old:)! By the way, thank you Pastor MacArthur for your stand for truth. I'm reading "Truth War". It just goes so well with this topic. Get the book and read it TODAY!

#20  Posted by Douglas Grogg  |  Tuesday, February 23, 2010at 5:07 PM

James (#18), the lack of reading (Searching) the scriptures is only one of many evidences that they have never been born again. Because they do not receive a love of the truth so as to be saved God gives them over that they might believe a lie, see 2 Thessalonians 2:10,11. -His Unworthy Slave

#21  Posted by Randy Johnson  |  Tuesday, February 23, 2010at 7:56 PM

First, what are biblical priorities at stake in the ecumenical question?

"The battle is the Lord's." We are not in control. We surrender to the Lord Jesus and make ourselves vailable to do whatever He wills.

Second, what drives evangelical leaders to compromise traditionally evangelical priorities in the quest for some form of unity?

It sells books, and it keeps them in the conversation.

#22  Posted by Rick White  |  Tuesday, February 23, 2010at 8:31 PM

What it all boils down to is do we let scripture guide us in our Christian walk, (2 Timothy 3:15-17) or do we let the precepts of men guide us?(Matthew 15:9)If we allow scripture to guide us it leads us to to be "adequate,equipped for every good work" 2 Timothy 3:17 and following the precepts of men leads us to "fall into a pit" Matthew 15:14.I think the choice is clear.Also as it would be wrong to let a blind man fall into a physical pit,it is also wrong for us to allow a spiritually blind man fall into a spiritual pit.We have a responsibility to sound a warning before others fall into the pit.2 Timothy 2:24-26

#23  Posted by Leonardo Go  |  Wednesday, February 24, 2010at 6:51 AM

Dear Robert #13, Mary #16 and James # 18,

Just for clarification, Can you state your stance on Manhattan declaration, Are you for or against Manhattan Declaration ?

Thanks

#24  Posted by Robert Lombardi  |  Wednesday, February 24, 2010at 7:11 AM

Leonardo. I didn't sign the Manhattan Declaration, I wish I could, because the social evils that it adresses are important. But I couldn't sign it in clear conscience. I wrote an article last year about why I didn't sign it; the article includes more details. http://clicky.me/no-manhat

#25  Posted by Elaine Bittencourt  |  Wednesday, February 24, 2010at 7:43 AM

# 24 - "social evils"

you just reminded me of this sermon:

https://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/80-257_The-Deadly-Dangers-of-Moralism

------------

question # 1- whenever I hear the words "unity" and "love" in the church environment, a bell rings inside my head. I really pay attention to what they are saying then. I try not to look surprised anymore when someone whom I thought was a real believer makes a defense for "all in God". Still.... J.I. Packer, Billy Graham... these are big names, and yes, it's hard to go against those who have done much for the true faith and seem to go astray now. Yet, this is expected to happen. The truth is at stake. Discernment is not valued anymore. What the bible says doesn't really matter much anymore.

question # 2 - someone pointed out money. Yes, that's a factor, a big factor. You need to embrace everyone and their beliefs if you want to use their resources. (see sermon link I just posted). I also believe that a lot of people are "honestly" deceived - meaning they really believe in the error. However, there will be no excuses for that.

-------------

# 10 - Josue.

Just to clarify, what do you mean by "Although they might be right with the fact that all religions lead to the same conclusion..."

In Christ,

E.

#26  Posted by Estella Loera  |  Wednesday, February 24, 2010at 8:15 AM

i admired Chuck Colon and Prison Fellowship and now my heart is sad to know this. i value and trust John and RC, God help us discern.

Estella

#27  Posted by Roger Christiansen  |  Wednesday, February 24, 2010at 8:28 AM

Part of the problem may be that many Christians do not see the big picture. They see the need for forgiveness, cleansing and justification. However, beyond that our Lord bought for us the process of sanctification without which no man my see the Lord. Sanctification is an ongoing persuit without which no man may see the Lord. (Hebrews 12:4-17) & (1 Peter 1:15-16) Yet many seeing the the need for forgiveness, do not take to disipline in the persuit for day by day Holiness. If one tries to speak to them of such matters they are many times accused of preaching salvation by works.
#28  Posted by Bret Lee  |  Wednesday, February 24, 2010at 8:32 AM

I signed the Manhattan declaration before thinking it through. I now renounce and repent of signing it. Thanks to John MacArthur's truth and biblical sense on that.

Elaine, I too highly recommend this message: https://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/80-257_The-Deadly-Dangers-of-Moralismalong along with the complete message that started this blog.

John made so much sense in this sermon on moralism. I feel confident about putting more concentration towards the lost (elect) of God. John is so right when he says a moral nation will not make a Christian, but coming to Christ will make a person moral. (he said it much better then I have) in his message.

I too wondered about the comments on #10 as I scrolled by.

Bret Lee

#29  Posted by Bobby Bugg  |  Wednesday, February 24, 2010at 8:42 AM

The Bible must be one's authority, not MONEY, as long as the emphasis is on the dollar, we will suffer.

#30  Posted by Roger Christiansen  |  Wednesday, February 24, 2010at 9:06 AM

Bobby, I don't think anyone would argue with the Bible being one's spiritual authority. However, just with money there are the rich and the poor.

What has been your experience when dealing with rich and poor people?

How can the rich best serve the poor?

How can Gods people best serve the poor?

How do rich people plunder, exploit, crush, and oppress the poor?

Being poor of spirit can been in many ways conpared to be poor finacially, "can it not?"

Understanding poverty and its causes can in many ways lead us to understanding our own spiritual condition. I have worked with the rich and the poor for many years and found it to be a very rewarding exoerience in my life. I have found that poverty is a very misunderstood condition in the American social system.

#31  Posted by Josué Morissette  |  Wednesday, February 24, 2010at 9:13 AM

#25 - Elaine

What I mean by that is that the way to God is not through any religion, but by faith alone. So every religion out there leads to being excluded from the kingdom of God, therefore they all lead to hell.

#32  Posted by Leonardo Go  |  Wednesday, February 24, 2010at 9:14 AM

Robert # 24,

Thank you very much for your prompt reply. I agree with your stance on Manhattan Declaration after reading your article and R. C. Sproul article on this issue at your website. You have been very helpful. Thanks again.

#33  Posted by Mike Sexton  |  Wednesday, February 24, 2010at 9:37 AM

Comment deleted by user.
#34  Posted by Mike Sexton  |  Wednesday, February 24, 2010at 9:51 AM

Comment deleted by user.
#35  Posted by Greg Culverhouse  |  Wednesday, February 24, 2010at 10:45 AM

Thank you for a great message, keep preaching the truth. One of the problem is why do we as "Born Again Christians" need to embrace every religion of the world but not one of them is willing to embrace what we believe. If we believe what these other "religions " believe, then we cannot stand on what we say we believe. In order to embrace other belief systems then we have to deny our own belief, therefore we can't say we believe what the Bible says and proclaim it as the Truth. Jesus said "No man cometh unto the Father, but through me." If any person preaches or teaches anything else, he is liar and is guilty of deception. It was heartbreaking to hear that Chuck Colson is going along with this. Thank you again John for preaching the Truth even when toe world does not want to hear it.

#36  Posted by Elaine Bittencourt  |  Wednesday, February 24, 2010at 2:09 PM

# 28 - Bret, did you un-sign the declaration?

here's how to: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/01/un-signing-manhattan-declaration-psa.html

Grace and Peace,

E.

#37  Posted by Elaine Bittencourt  |  Wednesday, February 24, 2010at 2:28 PM

# 31 - Josue. I didn't get that from your original comment.

So I get what you were trying to say, that the same conclusion of all religions is hell. Not all paths lead to God.

Grace and Peace,

E.

#38  Posted by Elaine Bittencourt  |  Wednesday, February 24, 2010at 2:36 PM

# 33 - Mike,

let's forget for a moment all the labels, denominations, etc. I am going to ask you to draw this line, and it's a definite and hard line, believe me: the letter of 1 John.

There are ultimately only 2 kinds of religions in the world, the religon of divine accomplishment and the religion of human achievement. (paraphrasing Pastor MacArthur). Two paths, One Way.

In Christ,

E.

#39  Posted by Mike Sexton  |  Thursday, February 25, 2010at 3:22 AM

Comment deleted by user.
#40  Posted by Mike Sexton  |  Thursday, February 25, 2010at 4:07 AM

I went back and deleted all of my previous comments because I have to say honestly that I don't want to admit that my religion is as exclusive as it truly is...but the facts are...true, biblical Christianity is exclusive. The Word isn't speaking lightly when it says that the way is narrow and very few find it. I'm not going to shoot off into the realms of hyper-Calvinism, but if we aren't careful, ecumenism would become a bulldozer that tries to widen the road.

#41  Posted by Bret Lee  |  Thursday, February 25, 2010at 3:47 PM

Elaine,

Just now I requested to unsign it, but they don't make it easy to unsign it. Basically I just had to send them a message asking to be removed.

thanks for the link, it took me to their website.

Bret

#42  Posted by Elaine Bittencourt  |  Thursday, February 25, 2010at 5:13 PM

# 40 - Mike,

I like what you say: "but if we aren't careful, ecumenism would become a bulldozer that tries to widen the road."

Yes, true, biblical Christianity is very exclusive.

------------

# 41 - Bret, I hope it works!

God bless you all,

E.

#43  Posted by Kirk Bookmyer  |  Friday, February 26, 2010at 2:32 PM

Are you ready to go into a church and tell them that they must repent of the false-teaching being pontificated from the pulpit? If you are a true soldier of Jesus, you will do just that. This is the loving response. But almost every so-called "Christian" I meet doesn't really have true love for people. They haven't the faith to stand up to Rome and it's many evangelical protestant colonies. Can you say NEW WORLD ORDER from ROME!? Manhattan Declaration!

#44  Posted by Bret Lee  |  Friday, February 26, 2010at 4:14 PM

Elaine it didn't take too long.

Dear Bret,Thank you for your request. We are sorry for your decision to have your name removed from the signers of the Manhattan Declaration. We will remove your name from the list of signers, but it may take a few days. We will continue to ask everyone to read the Manhattan Declaration in its entirety and, if it resonates with their own convictions, to join us in endorsing it.God Bless,Manhattan DeclarationSent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 6:43 PMTo: TheMovementSubject: Manhattan Declaration Contact Us Submission

#45  Posted by Laneisa Jackson  |  Friday, February 26, 2010at 7:15 PM

This emphasis appears to be timely. In my daily interactions recently, I have been pleasantly surprised to meet folks who had assumed that all of us who witness as Christians beleived this nonsense. When we (coworkers mainly) have the chance to talk, they seem pleased to know that their own misgivings are shared.

Let's get on the front line and tell the truth..tell them the gospel.

#46  Posted by John Shrein  |  Saturday, February 27, 2010at 3:46 AM

It's just as MacArthur said in the sermon..."it is in a fallen mans nature to believe lies."

#47  Posted by Roger Christiansen  |  Saturday, February 27, 2010at 7:46 AM

I believe kirk had it right when he talked standing up to Rome and its Evangelical Protestant colonies. The question is how far are we willing to go. Back to first century Christian faith that knew nothing about Easter, Christ-Mass/Christmas, or trinitaian thought. These ideas were unknown to them.

When Rome had its Hellenistic revival during the first century it was going back to a type of religious faith rather then a faith in logic. Men like Lucian leading the surge. Then men like Tertullian, Galen, Oregen, so that by the middle of the third century the capital of the empire became the capital of what is known as the western church. The Jewish portion had given the church its ethics, but Greek portion gave it its theology. Not only had the church absorbed some Christian ideals it had stole other vestments of the pagon priests. The use of incense and holy water in purifications, the burning of candles and everlasting light before the alter, the worship of saints, the architecture of the basiica, the statue of Thor becomes the statue of Peter. the laws of Rome become cannon law, Sunday worship of the Sun God became Christian worship, the eucharist becoming the central theme behind the pagon title Pontifex Maximus for the supreme ruler only given to Caeser in the past, and latin behind the enduring pagon rituals of Easter, Christ-Mass and trinitarian thought.

So how far do we wish to go. I would bet that most would rather pick and chose from the traditions they except as truth as does Catholicism. Catholicism has always had fun with this as it knows the western church is just a schism of their form of heresy. The only other recourse is to go back to the first century church and draw from its early understanding of Christ message and get away from tradition. Some churches have even gone back to having Sabbatarian understanding including keeping all the Holy days of the Old Testemant. So, that brings us back to a situation like we have with the health care bill today. Let's sit down and reason and start over. Will I would bet it ain't gone to happen. We to are so entrenced in our own ideoligical groups for that to happen now. The church had the same situation in the second and third centuries when eastern and western understanding clashed. Rome won the battle as it did with almost evrything else back then. Even today most Christian churches keep much of the faith of Roman Catholisism.

Christ Himself will have to sort this all out. I do not think man will be given that option. This is not to say that truth is not being spoken from the pulpit, only that we humans have been flaws even if we are born again Christians. We do not have all the understanding that some had in the faith once delivered. It has become so clouded over the centuries that we will have to muddle along as best we can. Till the time comes let us all be good stewards of the mysteries of God. (1 Corinthians 2:14-16; 4:5; 2 Corinthians 2:17; Hebrewa 13:6; 1 John 5: 11-12)

#48  Posted by Laneisa Jackson  |  Saturday, February 27, 2010at 7:56 AM

NO. Muddling along is unacceptable. We must witness beyond the pulpit to the truth of the Scripture and against the lies that this blog is addressing. Woe is me it is all a"mystery" is not the stand we are equipped to make.

One by one we can help and if need be ..seperate even further from this nonsense that is called by the Christian name today.

#49  Posted by Roger Christiansen  |  Saturday, February 27, 2010at 9:44 AM

Laneisa, I do agree with you when you say one by one. So many times when a person stands for the truth he becomes unwittingly a movement. Luther, the Wesleys for example became movements and any further exposition of scripture in that perticular movement died with them. They became the theology of the movement. Man likes to glorify himself and we can get caught up in our own rhetoric, which is the difference between a speech and a sermon.

#50  Posted by Laneisa Jackson  |  Saturday, February 27, 2010at 10:17 AM

Well, Roger, I think the difference between a speech and a sermon can be blurred if the source is. That is why the emphasis must be the Word of the Scripture rather my thoughts on the same. Surely the reformation did not die with Luther, did it? You do touch on an important element, though. As a professional salesman, I get nervouss when I hear a sermon that sounds like the motivational speakers' speechesI am forced to endure in my job.

The difference in it all is the message itself and Who it points to.

#51  Posted by Roger Christiansen  |  Saturday, February 27, 2010at 10:41 AM

I don't think the reformation dead. However, if you are a devote Luthern it may be for you. Yes a sermon is exposatory preaching from scripture, don't know any other way to discribe it.

I'm a retired entriprenier, so I know what you mean by listening to motivational speakers. I have endured church rhetoric that have been called sermons that are nice 15 min. touchy feelly talks not sermons. Things that make you feel good but are emty spiritually. You go away thinking what did I learn here today. Nothing of great value that will lead to spiritual growth.

#52  Posted by Shawn Wescott  |  Tuesday, March 02, 2010at 6:20 PM

I would like to offer what I believe is becoming more and more obvious to us all. Christ, in Matthew 7:14 says "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it". This should be a reminder of the harsh reality of the world. The implications of this statement are evidenced by the massive number of Roman Catholics/Muslims in this world. True believers of the gospel just are not many in number. 1 Cor 3:4 reads, "I follow Paul and another "I follow Apollos" are you not mere men?" So here Paul struggles with the same human nature as today. I follow the "pope", I follow Joel Osteen, I follow the sun. Man has turned from Christ to something more temporal in today's society. It is that simple. We need more evangelizing with "Christ and him crucified" at center stage. Deny ourselves, take up our crosses daily and follow the Word of God. Let the Spirit illuminate and God will to the work.