Archive for August, 2009

This letter is addressed to you as a leader within your Christian organization as well as to many other leaders of the Christian media.

Wednesday, August 26th, 2009

Guest Post by Jack Lewis

Dear Brothers in Christ,

Since this is a lengthy letter, to get your attention, I’m starting with the final word. A detailed explanation then follows.

Final word.

1   Christians cannot absolve themselves from their part in allowing this country’s slide into immorality through the actions of a Godless Government.

2   Christians need to repent and ask God’s forgiveness with prayer and fasting and to ask God to raise-up God fearing people to stand for election at the next General Election.

3   The Christian media and organized churches need to play their part and allow themselves to be God’s instrument in uniting and speaking out to all His people in the UK.

If you think this is not really your concern then read no further.

This letter is addressed  to you as a leader within your Christian organization as well as to many other leaders of the Christian media. All these organizations are listed at the end of this letter. The subject is the total breakdown of trust in our elected authorities and the moral decline brought about by the raft of anti-Christian rules and regulations over the last 50 years or so. The scandal of the MP’s expenses has brought our whole governing system into disrepute in the eyes of most people regardless of their belief system or world view.

I believe that this country now stands at a spiritual crossroads. I do not believe that we have had such a crisis of confidence in government as we are having today. We have witnessed a Government driven moral decline resulting in reducing family values, political correctness and its obsession with homosexuality. I believe this slide into ‘official’ immorality started in 1967 when abortion was legalized. The ‘safety net’ clauses were soon discarded and abortion became nothing less than selfish child sacrifice for social reasons. At the other end of life we are now witnessing the spectre of cries for euthanasia to be legalized. With this loss of respect for our leaders and a General Election less than 12 months away, it is time for a moral backlash such as never seen before in this country. I have a vision that it is now time for Christians to act in unity and to act decisively in reversing this trend.

First of all Christians have a great deal to answer for their part in allowing, through silence and poor leadership, for this decline. In fact I would go so far as to say that the ‘Church’ in the UK/West has long lost its direction and has almost liberalised itself out of existence. The western church fits the description given to the lukewarm Laodicean church in Rev 3:15-18 and warned:

“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot!

16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.

17 For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.

18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see.

There is no longer any loud Christian voice left especially from the Church of England. I have seen mentioned several times recently in this connection the wise words of Edmund Burke (1729 – 1797) ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’. Surely it is time for Christians to stop tut-tutting at the downward moral spiral whilst at the same time agreeing with Edmund Burke and start to DO something about it! I think the electorate, of whatever philosophical persuasion, is ready for some radical changes in this country’s leadership but they don’t know how to achieve it. To them the choices are still the same and as for Christians these choices are no choice at all. Anti-Christian legislation will continue to increase regardless of which of the current mainstream parties are elected.

The Bible tells us that we are to submit to the governing authorities:

Romans 13:1-4

1  Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

2  Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement.

3  For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,

4  for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

At the time Paul spoke these words the only governing authorities were unelected Godless dictatorships. Paul seemed to be saying that the God appointed authorities were for good administration and justice and not to be feared. What about authorities that forbid what God commands and commands what God forbids? On this Paul is silent. However we could take a leaf out of Peter and John’s book in Acts 4:19-20 when they were hauled before the Saducees for disobeying their command not to proclaim Jesus in the Temple:

Acts 4:19-20

19 But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, 20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”

Where we have no control over our governing authorities then perhaps civil disobedience would be the only course of action. However if God has given us the intellect to elect our own leaders then we can hardly complain when we allow them to abuse us through our inaction. We are reaping exactly what we have sown. Below is a litany of immoral anti-Christian legislation that has been enacted by successive Governments since 1967. The irony is that it is we who elected them and then stood back and watched in silence while they gradually undermined this country’s Christian way of life.

1967: The Abortion Act. Abortion became legalized clearing the way for general moral decline and anti-Christian legislation over the next 42 years.

1993: The National Lottery Act.

1994: The lowering of the homosexual age of consent to 18.

1994: The Sunday Trading Act.

1996: Family Law Act: No Fault divorce, however due to failed pilot schemes it was dropped by the present Government in 2001.

2000: Sexual Offences Act: Homosexual age of consent lowered again to 16.

2000: Repeal of Section 28 (Scotland). Section 28 prevented homosexuality being promoted in schools.

2000: Prescription Only Medicines (Human Use) Amendment Order 2000. This order allowed school nurses to hand out morning-after pills to school children of any age.

2000: Prescription Only Medicines (Human Use) Amendment (No. 3) Order

2000. This allows the morning -after pill to be given out in chemists legally to those over 16.

2001:  Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations

2001: Legalisation of the cloning of humans for medical experimentation.

2002: Adoption and Children Act: Allowing homosexual and cohabiting couples to jointly adopt children (in England and Wales).

2003: Local Government Act: Defeat of “conscience clause” amendment which would have protected council employees from being forced to participate in same-sex adoption.

2003: Local Government Act: Repeal of Section 28 (England and Wales). Section 28 prevented homosexuality being promoted in schools

2003: EU Employment Directive Implementation. This banned work-place discrimination on grounds of religion, belief or sexual orientation. It could force churches and religious organisations to employ non-believers and practising homosexuals. Christian employers would have to prove their case for employing fellow believers before an employment tribunal.

2003: Communications Act. This continues to bar Christians from holding main broadcasting licences.

2003: Criminal Justice Act: Creates ‘aggravated offences’ meaning that racial, religious, sexual orientation or disability groups will have more protection than other citizens.

2003: Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) (No.2) Order: Reclassifies cannabis from Class B down to Class C. (This change has now been reversed.)

2004: Gender Recognition Act: Allows people who have had, or who want to have, a ‘sex change’ operation to be given a new (and therefore fake) birth certificate. This would allow them to marry someone of the same biological sex.

2004: Civil Partnership Act: Creating ‘gay marriage’ in law in all but name (UK-wide).

2004: Children Act: The parental right to smack in England and Wales is partially restricted – the defence of reasonable chastisement removed in some cases.

2005: Gambling Act: The deregulation of gambling including new mega casinos, unlimited slot machine prizes, removing bar on advertising and giving free rein to internet gambling.

2005: Mental Capacity Act: Allows euthanasia by omission (e.g. by withdrawing food and water) in England and Wales.

2005: Family Law (Scotland) Act: Makes divorce easier and quicker in Scotland. Also introduces rights for cohabiting couples which mimic those of marriage.

2007: Equality Act Sexual Orientation Regulations: Outlaws discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services. Religious exemptions do not cover organizations receiving public funding like adoption agencies.

2008: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act: This attacks the sanctity of life, allowing creation of animal-human embryos and ‘saviour siblings’. Doctors no longer need to consider a child’s need for a father when deciding to give a woman IVF treatment.

2008: Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order: Lowers the age of consent for sexual activity from 17 to 16 in Northern Ireland.

2009: Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Act: Creates stronger penalties for crimes committed on grounds of sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability, meaning these groups have more protection than other citizens.

Of the 26 regulations listed, 12 help promote homosexual and sexual orientation lifestyles, 4 attack marriage, 5 attack the sanctity of life, 3 relax gambling rules, 1 relaxes Sunday trading laws and 1 reclassified cannabis from a Class B down to a Class C (although this has now been reversed).

I believe it is now time for Christians to swallow their pride, sink their denominational differences and start to get really humble before God. Our denominational and theological differences must not be allowed to prevent the kind of unity that is needed at this time. I would go as far as to say that even some of those with no theology would throw in their lot with Christians to see a moral change take place. In respect of encouraging Christian media action Amos 3:3 says:

Do two walk together, unless they have agreed to meet?

This should apply to the Christian media uniting in, what could be called, a Christian led moral campaign for political change. This action, I believe, should firstly be a need to seriously repent for our slothful silence and secondly to ask God’s forgiveness. We need to do what we once did during the war and have days of national prayer and throw ourselves on God’s mercy. John Piper, in his book ‘A Hunger For God’ quoted from John Wesley’s journal in which he tells of a ‘Biblical’ deliverance in 1756. In that year George III called for a day of solemn prayer and fasting because of a threatened invasion by the French. Wesley wrote,

The fast day was a glorious day, such as London has scarce seen since the Restoration. Every church in the city was more than full, and a solemn seriousness sat on every face. Surely God heareth prayer, and there will yet be a lengthening of our tranquillity.

In a footnote Wesley added later,

Humility was turned into national rejoicing for the threatened invasion by the French was averted.

Since our elected authorities do not acknowledge the sovereignty of God, it is up to us, who elected them, to call upon God and to show a deep sense of remorse and repentance with fasting for our years of inactivity and ask God to help us choose and elect Godly representatives. We need to use the intelligence God gave us and use whatever resources we have available to us. In my view our best resource is the Christian media i.e. the Christian press, Christian TV and Radio, Christian alliance groups and e-mails. Churches need to talk to their congregations. It would appear also that much political campaigning is now conducted through social networking websites like ‘Facebook’ and ‘Twitter’ and ought to be used to spread the word. If I may take some of the words of Paul in Rom 10:14-15, although out of context, could equally apply to this situation:

‘And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?’

The Christian media could draw people’s attention to Christian political parties like the Christian Peoples Alliance or The Christian Party or some other worthy party. These parties are very small, but then so was Gideon. They will need a lot of help, some of it from us but mostly from God. We need to find a ‘Gideon’ or ‘Jehoshaphat’ who will speak out via the Christian media with a call to pray and fast and bring about a change in the way this country should be governed. I believe that representatives of the Christian media needs to meet together to pray, fast and seek God’s guidance in how and what to communicate to the people.

In the Old Testament God handled this kind of crisis by using His prophets speaking  blessings and curses to His people as needed. However you don’t need to be a prophet to see what has happened, why it happened and what it needs to reverse it. A strong voice from the Christian media could be God’s instrument to work a miracle for those who would stand for election when the time comes, just as He did for Gideon and his 300 men! Think what 300 Christian MPs could do in Parliament! The message that this would convey to the Labourites, the Conservatites and the Liberalites would be the same as was for the Midianites.

Therefore I urge the Christian media to unite and help bring about a spiritual and political change that maybe will be like a full blown revival. Time is running out fast! If the media are able to call Christians to action but Christians still do nothing then I believe it will be all up for us. We would do well to heed the words written to the Church in Ephesus in Rev 2:4-5 for I believe they may well apply to us in this country.

But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

However it is entirely possible that we are too late and that God has already removed the lampstand!

Yours sincerely in Christ

Jack Lewis

List of recipients of this letter.

Cross Rhythms, Jesus Fellowship Church, GOD TV UK & Ireland, Christian Party, Christian Peoples Alliance, United Christian Broadcasters, Genesis – Revelation TV,  KICC TV Premier Christian Media, Evangelical Alliance, FIEC, Affinity,  The Christian Police Association, Soul Survivor, The Church of England Newspaper, Woman Alive Magazine, The Baptist Union, Christianity Today Magazine,  Premier Media Group, Methodist Church House, The Salvation Army,  The Christian Institute, the Archbishop of York, The Archbishop of Canterbury, Creation Ministries International, New Wine Church, The Church Times,  The Church of Scotland, Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Churches’ Media Council, Christian Broadcasting Council, eChurchWebsites Blog.

Roman Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan said Tuesday that it was “a sad and perplexing mistake” to free Abdel Baset al-Megrahi

Wednesday, August 26th, 2009

NYC clergy condemns Scotland freeing bomber

NEW YORK (AP) —  New York City’s religious leaders say Scotland’s decision to free the Lockerbie bomber was a mistake and could potentially encourage other terrorists.

Roman Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan said Tuesday that it was “a sad and perplexing mistake” to free Abdel Baset al-Megrahi. Megrahi had been serving a life sentence for the 1988 airplane bombing that killed 270 people.

The bomber has terminal cancer. Scotland freed him last week on compassionate grounds.

Jewish leader Rabbi Joseph Potasnik calls the release a cruel blow to the victims families.

The head of the city’s largest mosque, Imam Mohammed Shamsi Ali, says he was troubled by the rousing welcome the bomber was given by Libya. He says he hopes it will not encourage other terrorists.

The heads of the second and third largest Lutheran bodies in the United States spoke out Monday against the recent actions of the largest in the land, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and affirmed their Bible-based belief that homosexuality is sinful.

Wednesday, August 26th, 2009

by Joshua A Goldberg, Christian Post

Lutheran bodies reaffirm Bible’s stance on homosexuality

“To view same-sex relationships as acceptable to God is to place cultural viewpoint and human opinions above the clear Word of God,” commented the Rev Mark Schroeder, president of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS).

“The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, along with The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and other smaller Lutheran synods, maintains and upholds the clear teaching of the Bible that homosexuality is not in keeping with God’s design and is sinful in God’s eyes,” he added.

On Friday, the chief legislative body of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) voted 559-451 to approve a resolution allowing gays and lesbians in “life-long, monogamous, same gender relationships” to be ordained.

Earlier in the week, during ELCA’s 2009 Church Assembly, delegates adopted a new social statement on human sexuality with exactly the number of votes (676 or two-thirds) needed to pass it. The statement, which emphasises trust and bound conscience, addresses a spectrum of topics relevant to human sexuality, including social structures, cohabitation, sexual exploitation, abuse, and homosexuality – the latter of which has drawn the most attention and controversy.

Opponents of the statement had argued that adopting the statement would constitute abandonment of Scripture, as the Bible does not support homosexual behaviour. Supporters, however, said the document maintain that it is consistent with the biblical command to care for one’s neighbour and build trusting relationships.

Following the conclusions of last week’s biennial assembly, WELS’s president acknowledged that it is the Church’s responsibility to show love and compassion to sinners. But he emphasised that this should not be done by condoning or justifying the sin, but by calling the sinner to repentance and by assuring the sinner that there is full forgiveness in Jesus Christ.

“We believe, and the Bible teaches, that God designed this relationship to be a blessing for men and women and for society. Any departure from what God himself has designed does two things: it denies the clear teachings of Scriptures and it undermines God’s desire that the man/woman relationship in marriage be a blessing,” added Schroeder, whose denomination consists of about 390,000 members and nearly 1,300 congregations nationwide.

ELCA, meanwhile, boasts a membership of 4.7 million, making it not only the largest Lutheran church body in the United States, but also the the fourth largest Protestant body.

Despite ELCA’s size, Schroeder said it was “unfortunate that many headlines have referred to the recent decisions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America as something ‘Lutherans’ have decided” when, in fact, ELCA is only one of many Lutheran denominations.

“We are saddened that a group with the name Lutheran would take another decisive step away from the clear teaching of the Bible, which was the foundation of the Lutheran Reformation,” he stated.

In comments also released Monday, Dr Gerald B Kieschnick, president of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, also affirmed his denomination’s “historical understanding of the Christian church that the Bible condemns homosexual behaviour as ‘intrinsically sinful’”.

Kieschnick, who attended ELCA’s Church Assembly as a guest speaker, reiterated some of the comments he made on the final day of the August 17-23 gathering and noted how doctrinal decisions ELCA had already adopted in 2001 led the LCMS, “in sincere humility and love, to declare that we could no longer consider the ELCA ‘to be an orthodox Lutheran church body’.”

“Sadly, the decisions of this past week to ignore biblical teaching on human sexuality have reinforced that conclusion. We respect the desire to follow conscience in moral decision making, but conscience may not overrule the Word of God,” he commented.

In his concluding remarks, Kieschnick – whose denomination consists of 2.4 million members – recognised that many within the ELCA, there are both clergy and lay who “are committed to remaining faithful to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, are committed to the authority of Holy Scripture, and strongly oppose these actions”.

“To them we offer our assurance of loving encouragement together with our willingness to provide appropriate support in their efforts to remain faithful to the Word of God and the historic teachings of the Lutheran church and all other Christian churches for the past 2,000 years,” he stated.

ELCA, which officially came into existence on January 1, 1988, is product of the merging of three churches – the 2.25 million-member Lutheran Church in America (LCA), the 2.25 million-member American Lutheran Church (ALC) and the 100,000-member Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches (AELC).

Through its predecessor church bodies, ELCA is a founding member of the Lutheran World Federation, World Council of Churches and the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA – ecumenical bodies that the LCMS does not belong to.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has shocked the global warming debate by its formal call to hold a public global warming trial to decide on the “evidence” that mankind is driving a climate catastrophe.

Wednesday, August 26th, 2009

I won’t post this article here as it quite long and detailed with lots of links, but if you get a chance, try and have a read through this fascinating article on one of my favourite pet subjects, namely, the fall of the religion of man-made global warming:-

Exposed: Climate Fear Promoters Greatest Fear! A Public Trial of the ‘Evidence’ of Man-Made Global Warming Fears — Desperation Sets in as ‘Consensus’ Collapses  – ‘Series of inconvenient developments for promoters global warming fears continues unabated’

Why Catholics Should Care about their Lutheran and Anglican Brethren – This IS a ‘Catholic’ issue because part of being a Catholic is having a concern for all Christians By Deacon Keith Fournier

Wednesday, August 26th, 2009

I recently wrote an article entitled “Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Succumbs to Heresy” because it involved significant news. I also did so because I am a Catholic. As a Catholic, I believe I should be concerned about other Christians who are struggling within the communities which descended from the Protestant Reformation. Though the article was well received, there were some disapproving comments.

They ranged from the reader who wondered why such an article was “even published on a Catholic Web Site”, to others which used the term “schismatic” in reference to all Protestant Christians. Some even objected to my use of the term, “orthodox’ to distinguish those Lutherans who adhered to what C.S. Lewis would have called “Mere Christianity” by accepting the fundamentals of the Christian faith and those who have succumbed to heresy. Something similar happened when I reported on the assault on the basics of Christian doctrine within the Anglican/ Episcopal communities.

I begin with words from Pope Benedict XVI from his first Papal message: “Nourished and sustained by the Eucharist, Catholics cannot but feel encouraged to strive for the full unity for which Christ expressed so ardent a hope in the Upper Room. The Successor of Peter knows that he must make himself especially responsible for his Divine Master’s supreme aspiration. Indeed, he is entrusted with the task of strengthening his brethren (cf. Lk 22: 32). With full awareness, therefore, at the beginning of his ministry in the Church of Rome which Peter bathed in his blood, Peter’s current Successor takes on as his primary task the duty to work tirelessly to rebuild the full and visible unity of all Christ’s followers. This is his ambition, his impelling duty.”

He has placed the commitment to the full communion of the Church at the forefront of his Papacy. This is evident in his love, respect and repeated overtures toward our Orthodox brethren, whom we recognize as a Church and whose priesthood and Sacraments we also recognize. However, this love is also evident in his outreach to the separated Christians of the Reformation communities of the West. On the 4th anniversary of the death of his predecessor, John Paul II, Pope Benedict reminded us of John Paul’s passionate commitment to the full communion of the Church. That teaching is summarized in the Encyclical Letter “May they be One” (Ut Unum Sint).

The letter is rooted in an ecclesiology of communion. John Paul II wrote: “It happens for example that, in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, Christians of one confession no longer consider other Christians as enemies or strangers but see them as brothers and sisters. Again, the very expression “separated brethren” tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of “other Christians”, “others who have received Baptism”, and “Christians of other Communities”. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as “Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. The broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes” There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ.”(#42)

John Paul also wrote: “Relations between Christians are not aimed merely at mutual knowledge, common prayer and dialog. They presuppose and from now on call for every possible form of practical cooperation at all levels: pastoral, cultural and social, as well as that of witnessing to the Gospel message. Cooperation among all Christians vividly expresses that bond which already unites them, and it sets in clearer relief the features of Christ the Servant”. This cooperation based on our common faith is not only filled with fraternal communion, but is a manifestation of Christ himself. Moreover, ecumenical cooperation is a true school of ecumenism, a dynamic road to unity. Unity of action leads to the full unity of faith: “Through such cooperation, all believers in Christ are able to learn easily how they can understand each other better and esteem each other more, and how the road to the unity of Christians may be made smooth. In the eyes of the world, cooperation among Christians becomes a form of common Christian witness and a means of evangelization which benefits all involved.” (#40)

I am a “revert” to the Catholic Church. I wandered back home after my wayward teenage years to again embrace my Catholic faith. Though this is the faith that I was raised in, my return came after a search for truth. Among the many questions that troubled me on my journey was why the Christian Church was broken, splintered and at odds, camp against camp, for an entire millennium. This question led me to a study of Church History. My concern for understanding the causes of the great divide between East and West led me through the Patristic literature and rooted within me my deep love for the Eastern Church Fathers. My concern over the divisions in the West led me to study the writings of the Protestant Reformers. I was enriched by doing so.

I love the fullness of truth found within Catholic Church. I also carry a burden to see the prayer of Jesus, recorded in St. John, Chapter 17, answered. There is a connection. Into a world that is fractured, divided, wounded, filled with “sides” and “camps” at enmity with one another, the Church is called to proclaim, by both word and deed, the unifying love of a living God. The heart of the “Gospel” is the message that in and through Jesus Christ, authentic unity with God – and through Him, in the Spirit, with one another- is not only possible but is the plan of God for the entire human race. The Church is the way.

We report on the work of the Holy Spirit within the Orthodox Church. We report on what is good, as well as what is challenging, within Christian communities which descend from the Protestant Reformation. Many are facing great challenges, such as those within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Anglican Communion/Episcopal Church. This IS a “Catholic” issue because part of being a Catholic is having a concern for all Christians, including those with whom we are not (yet) in full communion but with whom we share a common Baptismal bond. The Second Vatican Council affirmed that the “fullness of truth ‘subsists’ within the Catholic Church”. This truth makes Catholics all the more responsible. “To those to whom much is given, much more will be required.” (Luke 12:48)

Let us take our lead from the clear teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the section entitled “Wounds to Unity”:

“817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church – for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body – here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism – do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

Toward unity

820 “Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.” Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: “That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me.” The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.”

CHARLES SPURGEON UNIMPEACHABLE JUSTICE

Wednesday, August 26th, 2009

“Against thee, thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in thy
sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest and be
clear when thou judgest.” Psalm 51.4

YESTERDAY was to me a day of deep solemnity; a pressure rested on my
mind throughout the whole of it, which I could not by any possibility
remove for at every hour I remembered that during that day one of the
most fallen of my fellow-creatures was launched into an unknown world,
and made to stand before his Maker. Some might have witnessed his
execution without tears; I think I could not even have thought of it for long
together without weeping, at the terrible idea of a man so guilty, about to
commence that endless period of unmingled misery, which is the horrible
doom of the impenitent, which God hath prepared for sinners. Yesterday
morning the sun saw a sight which sickened it — the sight of a man
launched, by a judicial process, into eternity, for guilt which has rendered
him infamous, and which will stamp his name with disgrace as long as it
shall be remembered.

There is now agitating the public mind something which I thought I might
improve this day, and turn to very excellent purpose. There are only two
things concerning which the public have any suspicion. The verdict of the
jury was the verdict of the whole of England, we were unanimous as to the
high probability, the well-nigh absolute certainty of his guilt; but there were
two doubts in our minds — one of them but small, we grant you, but if
both could have been resolved we should have felt more easy than we do
now. The one was concerning the criminal’s guilt, and the other was
concerning his punishment. At least some few of our fellow-countrymen
have been afraid, lest we may not have been justified when we spoke
against him, and quite clear when he was judged. Two things were wanted:
we should have liked to have had his own confession, and certainly we
should have preferred something more than circumstantial evidence; we
desired to have had the testimony of an eye-witness, who could swear to
the deed of murder done. But moreover, there is also a strong feeling in the
mind of many, that the severity of the punishment is questionable. There
are some who pronounce authoritatively, that the murderer’s blood must
be shed for murder; but there are some who think the Christian
dispensation has ameliorated the law, and that now it is no longer “eye for
eye, tooth for tooth.” Many persons in England have shuddered at the
thought of executing a penalty so fearful, on any man, however great his
crime, seeing that it puts him beyond the pale of hope. I shall not enter into
the question of the rightness of capital punishment; I have my opinion upon
it, but this is not exactly the place to state it: I only wish to use these facts
as an illustration of the text. David says, “O Lord, hear my own confession:
‘against thee, thee only, have I sinned,’ and by my own confession thou
wouldst ‘be justified when thou speakest, and clear when thou judgest.’
And, Lord, there is something else besides my own confession. Thou,
thyself, wast eye-witness of my deed. ‘Against thee thee only, have I
sinned, and done this evil in thy sight;’ and now thou art, indeed, ‘justified
when thou speakest, and clear when thou judgest.’ And as to the severity
of my punishment, there can be no doubt of that.” There may be doubt of
the severity, when man executes punishment for a crime against man, but
there can be no doubt when God himself executes vengeance for a crime
that is committed against himself. “Thou art justified when thou speakest;
thou art clear when thou judgest.”

Our subject this morning, then, will be, that both in the condemnation and
in the punishment of every sinner, God will be justified: and he will be
made most openly clear, from the two facts of the sinner’s own confession,
and God himself having been an eye-witness of the deed. And as for the
severity of it, there shall be no doubt upon the mind of any man who shall
receive it, for God shall prove to him in his own soul, that damnation is
nothing more nor less than the legitimate reward of sin.

There are two kinds of condemnation: the one is the condemnation of the
elect, which takes place in their hearts and consciences, when they have the
sentence of death in themselves, that they should not trust in themselves —
a condemnation which is invariably followed by peace with God, because
after that there is no further condemnation, for they are then in Christ
Jesus, and they walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. The second
condemnation is that of the finally impenitent, who, when they die, are
most righteously and justly condemned by God for the sins they have
committed — a condemnation not followed by pardon, as in the present
case, but followed by inevitable damnation from the presence of God. On
both these condemnations we will discourse this morning. God is clear
when he speaks, and he is just when he condemns, whether it be the
condemnation which he passes on Christian hearts, or the condemnation
which he pronounces from his throne, when the wicked are dragged before
him to receive their final doom.

I. In the first place, CONCERNING THE CHRISTIAN, when he feels himself
condemned by conscience and by God’s Holy Spirit, and when he hears the
thunders of God’s law proclaiming against him a sentence which, if it had
not been already executed on his Savior, would have been fulfilled on him,
the man has no grounds whatever at that time to plead any excuse; but he
will say in the words of the Psalmist. “Thou art justified when thou
speakest, and clear when thou judgest.” Let me show you how.

1. In the first place, there is a confession. With regard to the man who was
executed yesterday, there was no confession; we could not have expected
it: such crimes could not have been committed by a man capable of
confessing them. The fact that he died hardened in his guilt is proof wellnigh
conclusive that he was guilty for had he betrayed any emotion, or had
he bowed his knees and cried for mercy we might then have suspected that
he had not been guilty of so dark a deed of blood; but from the very fact
that he hardened his heart, we infer that he was capable of committing
crimes, the infamy of which point them out as the offspring of a seared and
torpid conscience. The Christian, when he is condemned by the Holy Law,
makes a confession, a full and free confession. He feels, when God records
the sentence against him, that the execution of it would be just, for his now
honest heart compels him to confess the whole story of his guilt. Allow me
to make some remarks on the confession which is followed by pardon.
First, such a confession is a sincere one. It is not the prattling confession
used by the mere formalist, when he bends his knee and exclaims that he is
a sinner, but it is a confession which is undoubtedly sincere, because it is
attended by awful agonies of mind, and usually by tears, and sighs, and
groans. There is something about the penitent’s demeanour which puts it
beyond the possibility of a fear that he is a deceiver when he is confessing
his sin. There is an outward emotion, manifesting the inward anguish of the
spirit. He stands before God, and does not merely turn King’s evidence
against himself, as the means of saving himself, but with tears in his eyes he
cries, “O God, I am guilty;” and then he begins to recount the
circumstances of his crime, even as if God had never seen him. He tells to
God what God already knows, and then the Gracious One proves the truth
of the promise, “He that confesseth his sin shall find mercy.”

In the next place, that confession is always abundantly sufficient for our
own condemnation. The Christian feels that if he had only half the sin to
confess that he is obliged to tell out to God, it would be enough to damn
his soul for ever — that it be had only one crime to acknowledge, it would
be like a millstone round his neck, to sink him for ever in the bottomless
pit. He feels that his confession is superabundantly enough to condemn him
— that it is almost a work of supererogation to confess all, for there is
enough in one tenth of it to send his soul to hell, and make it abide there
for ever. Have you ever confessed your sins like this? If not, as God liveth,
you have never known what it is to make a true confession of your sin, you
have never had the sentence of condemnation passed on you, in that way
which is succeeded by mercy; but you are yet awaiting that terrible
sentence which shall be succeeded by no words of love, but by the
execution of the sentence of infinite indignation and displeasure.
This confession is attended with no apology on account of sin. We have
heard of men who have confessed their guilt, and afterwards tried to
extenuate their crime and show some reasons why they were not so guilty
as apparently they would seem to be; but when the Christian confesses his
guilt, you never hear a word of extenuation or apology from him. He says,
“Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight;” and
in saying this, he makes God just when he condemns him, and clear when
he sentences him for ever. Have you ever made such a confession? Have
you ever thus bowed yourselves before God? Or have you tried to palliate
your guilt, and call your sins by little names and speak of your crimes as if
they were but light offenses? If you have not, then you have not felt the
sentence of death in yourselves, and you are still waiting till the solemn
death-knell shall toll the hour of your doom, and you shall be dragged out,
amidst the universal hiss of the execration of the world, to be condemned
for ever to flames which shall never know abatement.

Again: after the Christian confesses his sin, he offers no promise that he
will of himself behave better. Some, when they make confessions to God,
say, “Lord, if thou forgive me I will not sin again;” but God’s penitents
never say that. When they come before him they say, “Lord, once I
promised, once I made resolves, but I dare not make them now, for they
would be so soon broken, that they would but increase my guilt, and my
promises would be so soon violated, that they would but sink my soul
deeper in hell. I can only say, if thou wilt create in me a clean heart, I will
be thankful for it, and will sing to thy praise for ever; but I cannot promise
that I will live without sin, or work out a righteousness of my own. I dare
not promise, my Father, that I will never go astray again;

‘Unless thou hold me fast,
I feel I must, I shall decline
And prove like them at last.’

Lord, if thou dost damn me, I cannot murmur; if thou dost cast me into
perdition, I cannot complain, but have mercy upon me, a sinner, for Jesus
Christ’s sake.” In that case, you see, God is justified when he condemns,
and he is clear when he judges, even clearer than any earthly judge can be,
because it is seldom that such a confession as that is ever made before the
bar.

2. Again: when the Christian is condemned by the law in his conscience,
there is something else which makes God just in condemning him beside his
confession, and that is the fact, that God himself, the Judge, comes
forward as a witness to the crime. The convinced sinner feels in his own
soul that his sins were committed in the face of God, in the teeth of his
mercy, and that God was an exact and minute observer of every part and
particle of the crime for which he is now to be condemned, and the sin
which has brought him to the bar. “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned,
and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou
speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.”

The convinced sinner who has just become a Christian feels at that time
that God was a witness, and that he was a most veracious witness — that
he saw, and saw most clearly, and when God, by his law, says to him,
“Sinner, you did such-and-such a thing, and such-and-such a thing,” the
awakened conscience says, “Lord, that is true; it is true in every
circumstance.” And when God goes on to say, “Your motives were vile,
your objects were sinful,” conscience says, “Ay, Lord, that is true. I know
that thou didst see it, and that thou art a sure observer, thou art no false
witness, but all that thou sayest in thy law about me is true.” When God
says, “The poison of asps is under thy lips, thy throat is an open sepulcher,
thou dost flatter with thy tongue,” conscience says, “It is all true;” and
when he says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately
wicked,” conscience says, “It is all true;” and the sinner has this awful
thought, that every sin he ever sinned is written in heaven, and God records
it there; he feels, therefore, that God is just when he condemns, and clear
when he judges.

And, moreover, God is not simply a veracious witness, but the testimony
God gives is an abundant one. You know that in some cases which are
brought before our courts, the witness swears that he saw the man do so
and-so; but then he may be mistaken as to the identity of the person,
perhaps he did not see the whole transaction; and then he has not pryed
into the man’s heart to see what was the man’s reasons, which may make
the crime lighter or greater, as the case may be. But here we have a witness
who can say, “I saw all the crime; I saw the lust when it was conceived; I
saw the sin when it was brought forth; I saw the sin when it was finished,
bringing forth death; I saw the motive; I beheld the first imagination; I saw
the sin when, as a black rivulet, it started on its way, when it suddenly
began to increase by contributions of evil, and I saw it when it became at
last a broad ocean of unfathomable depth — an ocean of guilt which
human foot could not pass and over which the ship of mercy could not
have sailed, unless some mighty pilot had steered it by shedding his own
blood.” Then the Christian feels that God having seen it all, is justified
when he speaks, and clear when he condemns. I should feel a solemn
responsibility, if I were a judge, in putting on the black cap to condemn a
man to death; because, however carefully I may have weighed the
evidence, and however clear the guilt of the prisoner may have seemed,
there is a possibility of mistake, and it seems a solemn thing to have
consigned a fellow-creature’s soul to a future world, even with a possibility
of an error in that judgment; but if I had myself beheld the bloody act, with
what ease of mind might I then put on the black cap, and condemn the man
as being guilty, for I should know, and the world would know, that having
been a witness I should be just when I spake, and clear when I condemned.
Now, that is just what the Christian feels when God condemns him in his
conscience, he puts his hand upon his mouth, and yields without a word to
the justness of the sentence. Conscience tells him he was guilty, because
God himself was a witness.

3. The other question which I hinted at as being on the public mind, is the
severity of the punishment. In the case of a believer, when he is
condemned, there is no doubt about the justice of the punishment. When
God the Holy Ghost in the soul passes sentence on the old man, and
condemns it for its sins, there is felt most solemnly in the heart the great
truth, that hell itself is but a rightful punishment for sin. I have heard some
men dispute whether the torments of hell were not too great for the sins
which men can commit. We have heard men say that hell was not a right
place to send such sinners to as they were; but we have always found that
such men found fault with hell because they knew right well they were
going there. As every man finds fault with the gallows who is going to be
hung, so do many men find fault with hell because they fear that they are in
danger of it. The opinion of a man about to be executed must not be taken
with regard to the propriety of capital punishment, nor must we take the
opinion of a man who is himself marching to hell concerning the justice of
hell, for he is not an impartial judge. But the convinced sinner is a fair
witness; God has made him so, for he feels in his soul that there will be
pardon given to him, and that God, by grace, will never condemn him
there; but at the same time he feels that he deserves it, and he confesses
that hell is not too great a punishment, and that the eternity of it is not too
long a duration of punishment for the sin which he has committed. I appeal
to you, my beloved brethren and sisters. You may have had doubts as to
the propriety of your being sent to hell before you knew your sins; but I
ask you, when you were convinced of God, whether you did not solemnly
feel that he would be unjust if he did not damn your soul for ever. Did you
not say in your prayer, “Lord, if thou shouldst now command the earth to
open and swallow me up quick, I could not lift up my finger to murmur
against thee, and if thou wert now to roll o’er my head the billows of
eternal fire, I could not, in the midst of my howlings in misery, utter one
single word of complaint about thy justice?” And did you not feel that if
you were to be one thousand, thousand years in perdition, you would not
have been there long enough? You felt you deserved it all; and if you had
been asked what was the right punishment for sin, you dare not, even if
your own soul had been at stake have written anything except that
sentence, “everlasting fire.” You would have been obliged to have written
that, for you felt it was but deserved doom. Now, was not God just then
when he condemned, and clear when he judged? and did he not come off
clear from the judgment seats because you, yourself, said the sentence
would not have been one whit too severe if it had been fulfilled instead of
being simply recorded, and then you, yourself, set at liberty. Ah I my dear
friends there may be some who rail at God’s justice, but no convinced
sinner ever will. He sees God’s law in all its glorious holiness and he smites
his hand upon his breast and he says, “O sinner that I am! that I ever could
have sinned against such a reasonable law and such perfect
commandments!” He sees God’s love towards him, and that cuts him to
the very quick. He says, “Oh! that I should ever have spit on the facex of
that Christ who died for me! Wretch that I am, that I could ever have
crowned that bleeding head with the thorns of my sins, which gave itself to
slumber in the grave for my redemption!” Nothing cuts the sinner to the
quick more than the fact, that he has sinned against a great amount of
mercy. This indeed, makes him weep; and he says, “O Lord, seeing I have
been so ungrateful, the direst doom thou canst ever sentence me to, or the
fiercest punishment thou canst ever execute upon my head, would not be
too heavy for the sins I have committed against thee.”

And then the Christian feels too, what a deal of mischief he has done in the
world by sin. Ah! if he has been spared to middle age before he is
converted, he looks back and says, “Ah! I cannot tell how many have been
damned by my sins; I cannot tell how many have been sent down to
perdition by words which I have used, or deeds which I have committed.” I
confess, before you all, that one of the greatest sorrows I had, when first I
knew the Lord, was to think about certain persons with whom I knew right
well that I had held ungodly conversations, and sundry others that I had
tempted to sin, and one of the prayers that I always offered, when I prayed
for myself, was that such an one might not be damned through sins to
which I had tempted him. And I dare say this will be the case with some of
you when you look back. Your dear child has been a sad reprobate; and
you think, “Did, not I teach him very much that was wrong?” and you hear
your neighbors swear, and you think, “I cannot tell how many I taught to
blaspheme.” Then you will recollect your boon companions, those you
used to play eards or dance with, and you will think, “Ah! poor souls, I
have damned them.” And then you will say, “Lord, thou art just, if thou
dampest me,” When you reflect what a deal of mischief you have done by
your sir, you will then say, “Lord, thou art clear when thou judgest; thou
art justified when thou condemnest.” I warn you who are going on in your
sins, that one of the most fearful things you have to expect is, to meet
those in another world who perished through being led astray by you.

Think of that, O man! thou who hast been an universal tempter! There is a
man now in perdition who was taught to drink his first glass through you.
There lies a soul on his deathbed, and he says, “Ah! John, I had not been
here, as I now am, if you had not led me into evil courses which have
weakened my body, and brought me to death’s door.” Oh! what a horrible
fate will yours be, when, as you walk into the mouth of hell you will see
eyes staring at you, and hear a voice saying, “Here he comes! here comes
the man that helped to damn my soul!” And what must be your fate, when
you must lie for ever tossed on the bed of pain with that man whom you
were the means of damning? As those who are saved will make jewels in
the crowns of glory to the righteous, sure those whom you helped to damn
will forge fresh fetters for you and furnish fearful faggots, to increase the
flames of torment which shall blaze around your spirits. Mark that, and be
you warned. The Christian feels this terrible fact, when he is convinced of
sin, and that makes him feel that God would be clear if he judged him, and
would be justified if he condemned him. So much concerning this first
condemnation.

II. But now a little concerning THE SECOND CONDEMNATION, which is the
more fearful of the two. Some of you have never been condemned by
God’s law in your conscience. Now, as I stated at first, that every man
must be condemned once, so I beg to repeat it. You must either have the
sentence of condemnation paused on you by law in your conscience, and
then find mercy in Christ Jesus, or else you must be condemned in another
world, when you shall stand with all the human race before God’s throne.
The first condemnation to the Christian, though exceedingly merciful, is
terrible to bear. It is a wounded spirit, which none can endure. But, as for
the second condemnation, if I could preach with sighs and tears, I could
not tell you how horrible that must be. Ah, my friends, could some sheeted
ghost start from its tomb, and be reunited to the spirit which has been for
years in perdition, possibly such a man might preach to you, and let you
know what a fearful thing it will be to be condemned at last. But as for my
poor words, they are but air; for I have not heard the miserere of the
condemned, nor have I listened to the sighs, and groans, and moans of lost
spirits. If I had ever been permitted to gaze within the sheet of fire which
walls the Gulf of Despair — if I had ever been allowed to walk for one
moment o’er that burning marl whereon is built the dreadful dungeon of
eternal vengeance, then I might tell you somewhat of its misery; but I
cannot now for I have not seen those doleful sights which might fright our
eyes from their sockets, and make each individual hair stand upon your
heads. I have not seen such things; yet, though I have not seen them, nor
you either, we know sufficient of them to understand that God will be just
when he condemns, and that he will be clear when he judges. And, now, I
must go over the three points again; but I must be very brief about them.
1. God will be clear when he condemns a sinner, from this fact, that the
sinner when he stands before God’s bar, will either have made a
confession, or else such will be his terror that he will scarce be able to
brazen it out before the Almighty. Look at Judas. When he comes before
God’s bar, will not God be clear in condemning him? for he himself
confessed, “I have sinned against innocent blood,” and he cast down the
money in the temple. And few men are so hardened as to restrain
themselves from acknowledging their guilt. How many of you when you
thought you were dying, made a confession upon your death-beds to your
God! And mark you, there will be many of you, who, when you come to
die, though you have never confessed, yet will lie there, and confess before
God in your moments of wakefulness during the night, the sins of your
youth, and your former transgressions; and it may be, that when you are
laying there, God’s vengeance will be heavy on your conscience, that you
will be obliged to tell those who stand about your bed, that you have been
guilty of notorious sins. Ah! will not God be just when you shall go straight
from your death-bed to his bar, and he shall say, “Sinner, thou art
condemned on thine own confession; there is no need for me to open the
book, no need for me to pronounce the sentence; thou hast thyself
pronounced thine own guilt; ere thou didst die, thou didst stamp thyself
with condemnation; ‘depart ye cursed!’” And though there will be many
die who never made a confession in this world, and perhaps there will be
some professors so brazen-faced that they will even stand before God’s
throne and say, “when saw we thee a hungered, and fed thee not? When
saw we thee naked, and clothed thee not?” yet I cannot believe that most
of them will be able to plead any excuse. I find Christ saving of one that he
stood speechless when he was asked how he got in, not having on a
wedding garment, and so it may be with you, sirs. You may brazen it out
when here, you may scorn the law and despise the thunders of Sinai, but it
will be different with you then. You may sit up in your bed, and rail against
Christ, even when death is staring you in the face, but you will not do it
then. Those bones of yours which you thought were of iron, will suddenly
be melted; that heart of yours, which was like steel or the nether millstone,
will be dissolved like wax in the midst of your bowels; you will begin to cry
before God, and weep, and howl: you yourself will testify to your own
guilt, when you say, “Rocks! hide me; mountains! on me fall;” for you
would need no mountains and no rocks to fall upon you, if you were not
guilty. You will be justly condemned, for you will make your own
confession when you stand before God’s bar. Ah! if you could see the
criminal then, what a difference there is in him! Where now are those eyes
that stared so impiously at the Bible? Where now are those lips which said,
“I curse God and die!” Where now is that heart which once so stout, that
spirit once so valiant, as to laugh at hell and talk familiarly with death? Ah!
where is it? Is that the selfsame creature — he whose knees are knocking
together, whose hair is standing up on end whose blanched cheek displays
the terror of his soul? Is that the selfsame man who just now was burning
with impudent rage against his Maker? Yes, it is he; hear what he has to
say, “O God, I hate thee. I confess it; I was unjust in the world that has
gone by, and I am unjust now; wreak thy vengeance on me; I dare ask no
mercy, and no pardon, for fixed is my heart still to rebel against thee,
indissoluble are the bonds of my guilt: I am dammed, I am damned, and I
ought to be.” Such will be the confession of every man, when he shall stand
before his God at last, if he is out of Christ, and unwashed in the Savior’s
blood. Sinners! can ye hear that and not tremble? Then I have a wonder
before me this day — a wonder of conscience, a wonder of hardness of
heart, a wonder of impenitency.

2. But in the second place, God will be just, because there will be witnesses
there to prove it. There will be none of you my dear friends, if you are ever
condemned who will be condemned on circumstantial evidence: there will
be no necessity for the deliberation of a jury; there will be no conflicting
evidence concerning your crimes, there will be no doubts to testify in your
favor. In fact, if God himself should ask for witnesses in your case, all the
witnesses would be against you. But there will be no need of witnesses.
God himself will open his Book, and how astonished will you be, when all
your crimes are announced, with every individual circumstance connected
with them — all the minuteness of your motives, and an exact description
of your designs! Suppose I should be allowed to open one of the books of
God, and read that description, how astonished you would be! But what
will be your astonishment when God shall open his great book and say,
“Sinner, here is thy case,” and begin to read! Ah! mark how the tears run
down the sinner’s cheek; the sweet of brood comes from every pore; and
the loud thundering voice still reads on, while the righteous execrate the
man who could commit such acts as are recorded in that book. There may
be no murder staining the page, but there may be the filthy imagination,
and God reads what a man imagines, for to imagine sin is vile, though to
do it is viler still. I know I should not like to have my thoughts read over
for a single day. Oh! when you stand before God’s bar, and hear all this,
wilt thou not say, “Lord, thou wilt condemn me, but I cannot help saying
thou art just when thou condemnest, and clear when thou judgest.” There
will be eye-witnesses there.

3. But lastly, in the sinner’s heart there will be no doubt at last as to the
righteousness of his punishment. The sinner may in this world think that he
can never by his sins by any possibility deserve hell, but he will not indulge
that thought when he gets there. One of the miseries of hell will be that the
sinner will feel that he deserves it all. Tossed on a wave of fire he will see
written in every spark that emanates therefrom, “Thou knewest thy duty,
and thou didst it not.” Tossed back again by another wave of flame, he
hears a voice saying, “Remember, you were warned!” He is hurled upon a
rock, and whilst he is being wrecked there, a voice says, “I told thee it
would be better for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for thee.”
Again he plunges under another wave of brimstone, and a voice says “He
that believeth not shall be damned, thou didst not believe, and thou art
here.” And when again he is hurled up and down on some wave of torture,
each wave shall bear to him some dreadful sentence, which he read in
God’s Word, in a tract, or in a sermon. Yes, it may be, my friends, that I
shall be one of your tormentors in hell, if you should be damned. I trust in
God that I myself shall be in heaven; and perhaps, if ye are lost, one of the
most powerful things that shall tend to increase your misery will be the fact
that I have always tried to warn you, and warn you as earnestly as possible,
and when you lift up your eyes to heaven, you will shriek and say, “O God!
there is my minister looking down reprovingly on me, and saying ‘Sinner, I
warned thee.’” If thou art lost, it is not for want of preaching: if thou art
damned, it is not because I did not tell thee how thou mightest be saved, if
thou art in hell, it is not because I did not weep over thee, and urge thee to
flee from the wrath to come, for I did warn thee, and that will be the terror
of thy doom — that thou hast despised warnings and invitations, and hast
destroyed thyself. God is not accountable for thy damnation, and man is
not accountable for it; but thou thyself hast done it. And thou wilt say, “O
Lord, it is true I am now tossed in fire but I myself lit the flame, it is true
that I am tormented, but I forged the irons; which now confine my limbs; I
burned the brick that hath built my dungeon; I myself didst bring myself
here; I walked to hell, even as a fool goeth to the stocks, or an ox to the
slaughter; I sharpened the knife which is now cutting my vitals; I nursed
the viper which is now devouring my heart; I sinned, which is the same as
saying that I damned myself; for to sin is to damn myself — the two words
are synonymous.” Sin is damnation’s sire, it is the root, and damnation is
the horrible flower which must inevitably spring from it. Ay, my dear
friends, I tell you yet again there will be nothing more patent before the
throne of God than the fact, that God will be just when he sends you to
hell. You will feel that then, even though you do not feel it now.

I thought within myself just this minute, that I heard the whisper of some
one saying, “Well, sir, I feel that such men as Palmer, a murderer, will feel
that God is just in damning them, but I have not sinned as they have done.”
It is true, but if thy sins be less, remember that thy conscience is more
tender, for according to the amount of guilt, men’s consciences generally
begin to get harder, and because thy conscience is more tender, thy little
sin is a great sin, because it is committed against greater light and greater
tenderness of heart; and I tell you — that a little sin against great light may
be greater than a great sin against little light. You must measure your sins
not by their apparent heinousness, but by the light against which you
sinned. No crime could be much worse than the crime of Sodom; but even
Sodom, filthy Sodom, shall not have so hot a place as a moral young lady
one who has fed the poor and clothed the naked, and done all she could,
except loving Christ. What say you to that? Is it unjust? No. If I be a less
sinner than another, I all he more deserve to be damned, if I do not come
to Christ for mercy. Oh! my dear hearers, my beloved hearers, I cannot
bring you to Christ. Christ has brought some of you himself, but I cannot
bring you to Christ. How often have I tried to do it! I have tried to preach
my Savior’s love, and this day I have preached my Father’s wrath, but I
feel I cannot bring you to Christ. I may preach God’s law; but that will not
affright you, unless God sends it home to your heart; I may preach my
Savior’s love, but that will not woo you, unless my Father draw you. I am
sometimes tempted to wish that I could draw you myself — that I could
save you. Sure, if I could, ye should soon be saved! But ah! remember,
your minister can do but little; he can do nothing else but preach to you.

Do pray that God would bless that little, I beseech you, ye who can pray. If
I could do more, I would do it; but it is very little I can do for a sinner’s
salvation. Do, I beseech you, my dear people, pray to God to bless the
feeble means that I use. It is his work and his salvation; but he can do it. O
poor trembling sinner, dost thou now weep? Then come to Christ! O poor
haggard sinner, haggard in thy soul! come to Christ! O poor sin-bitten
sinner! look to Christ! O poor worthless sinner! come to Christ! O poor
trembling, fearing, hungering, thirsting sinner! come to Christ! “no! every
one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters; and he that hath no money, come,
buy wine and milk; yea, come buy wine and milk, without money and
without price.” Come! Come! Come! God help you to come! for Jesus
Christ’s sake. Amen.

British Humanist Association Watch

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

Just keeping you updated:-

British Humanist Association opens debate on faith in community development

The British Humanist Association (BHA) is organising an event to analyse issues concerning faith in community development and cohesion work. The event is being run as part of the government backed Interfaith Week and includes speakers from the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Faith Based Regeneration Network as well as community development specialists.

Pepper Harow, Local Campaigns Officer, explains, “The BHA regrets the fact that the Department for Communities and Local Government are taking such an exclusive approach. Surely if the Department believes that communities need to tackle issues of community cohesion and learning about different beliefs, it should have an inclusive approach which is framed to cover all individuals and communities and not just ‘faiths.’  We would prefer, therefore, to see a week dedicated to community cohesion more generally which does not focus specifically on religion.

However, the BHA notes that one of the aims of the week is to increase understanding between religious and non-religious individuals and feels that it would be counter productive for us to refuse to engage.

The BHA supports the idea of open debate and interactive discussion regarding many of the issues which Interfaith Week will be exploring. We therefore feel that it is important that the non-religious voice is heard in these discussions. That is why we have organised this event.”

She continued, “The event will explore the effects of government policy on communities and on individuals within those communities, whether religious or non-religious. It is open to professionals and activists in the community development, equalities, empowerment and community cohesion fields of work.”

Obama Gets Religion

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:  Tom Barrett

Obama is one strange dude. He spent 20 years in a church where the only religion was “Hate Whitey!” He swore that he would never turn his back on his pastor. Then he turned his back on him. He claimed that he followed “the Christian tradition,” whatever that means. Then on the campaign trail he belittled Christians who “clung to their religion.” Once he was elected he claimed to be “searching for a house of worship,” but months later the press reported that he had not darkened the doors of a church since he occupied the White House. Then suddenly, when he became desperate because the majority of Americans had turned against his health care “reform” plan, Obama turns into a preacher! I’m getting dizzy with all these flip-flops. Will the real Obama please go away.

The latest ABC-Washington Post poll now shows that a clear majority of American citizens oppose Obama’’s so-called health care “reform” plan – mostly because it reforms nothing, and adds trillions to the national deficit. (But the majority of illegal aliens are still solidly behind the plan.) Obama, who has been accustomed to worship and adoration, has become increasingly desperate in the face of the angry and vocal opposition to his plan. He became so frantic that he made the stupid move of trying to preach to a bunch of preachers.

In a hastily arranged conference call on August 19 with “140,000 religious leaders” Obama ranted and raved and misquoted Scriptures. I don’t know who these “leaders” were because for some reason I wasn’t invited. Somehow I doubt that any conservative preachers were. The invitations were arranged by a group called Faith for Health, which is squarely in Obama’s camp. The same day he spoke to a group of 1,000 rabbis and told them, but he held back on the fire and brimstone with them.

It reminded me of the Town Hall meeting held in South Florida by Democrat coward Robert Wexler. He didn’t want to hear any cross words, so he gave all the 500 tickets to the event to a group that promotes a complete government takeover of the nation’s healthcare system. No one else was allowed in; over 2,000 people were turned away. Even his supporters weren’t allowed to ask questions openly; they had to submit them in writing, and he only answered the ones he liked. If he really wanted to hear what his constituents had to say, he wouldn’t have booked the smallest auditorium in the area and stacked it with bootlickers.

In like manner, many of the groups listed on the Faith for Health website had names that began with the word “Progressive” (the new code word for “Socialist”); fringe groups of national denominations listed in such a way as to make it appear that the denomination itself was part of the group; all the denominations that have homosexual “clergy”; and of course the Islamic groups. And, like Wexler, Obama only allowed two pre-approved questions from the 1,000 rabbis on their conference call.

On his conference call “Minister Obama” swore that everyone who spoke against his plan was “bearing false witness.” (Oh, my! Does that mean I am going to fry in hell?) He also misquoted the Word of God when he said that we are all supposed to be our brother’s keeper. The message was simple. Even if you believed in REAL health care reform, even if you advocated changes that would actually improve the health delivery in this nation and bring costs down; you are an EVIL person if you don’t push HIS healthcare plan. Obamacare is Holy. Anything else, no matter how many doctors and health care experts support it, comes directly from the mouth of Satan!

And the hilarious part is that he told the preachers and rabbis what they should speak about to their congregations. He told the rabbis what they should discuss on Rosh Hoshanna, and he told the pastors what their sermons should be on Sunday. The bottom line: If they were REAL clergymen they would want Obamacare to pass, and in order for that to happen, all “people of faith” will have to get behind it. So the rabbis and preachers had better get with the program. This is so funny because any time an evangelical talks about something “political,” like, for instance, passing laws against murdering unborn babies, Obama and his liberal trolls go ballistic. But when it comes to pushing his faltering health care bill, it’s perfectly fine to mix church and state – because Obama, the High Priest of Liberalism, has declared it a “moral issue.”

Even some of the clergy who were invited to Obama’s two conference calls were offended by his statements, and his telling them what to preach. He told the rabbis, “We are God’s partners in matters of life and death.” They were told to keep Obama’s remarks “off the record,” but some published them on Twitter and blogs. Strangely, this material was “scrubbed” (removed) a short time later (see LINK below). Some preachers were upset because he “implied a kind of scriptural or holy support for his program.”

If you’re lucky you won’t have to endure the hokey commercial his hacks have put together to make it appear that all “people of faith” are behind Obamacare. My favorite parts were a preacher of some sort claiming, “Millions of people of faith support health insurance reform.” He was followed by a Baptist preacher who for some strange reason totally misquoted II Timothy 1:7, which says “For God has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” His version (which fit better with the script of the commercial) was, “but of love and action.” Call me crazy, but if I was a preacher supposedly representing “people of faith” on a commercial aired on national television, I think I’d take a few seconds to make sure I wasn’t misquoting God.

Look, I can understand the guy being desperate. After all, he promised the Kennedys, who financed his election; the Acorn people who broke every election law to get him elected; and all the illegal aliens and felons who voted for him, that he would get government healthcare passed. Now he’s looking bad. He had to do something.

But this was stupid. Americans are not always the brightest people on the planet. After all, enough of us bought his lies to elect him. But I doubt there are very many people in this country, even the simplest among us, who believe that Obama has suddenly “got religion.” Everyone knows he is cynically manipulating the liberal religious people. He thinks he can get them to convince the rest of us that passing stupid legislation that will destroy the best health care system in the world, is somehow a holy cause.

It’s not going to work, Obama. You’ve lost. This just makes you look deceitful and manipulative. Using God is just plain bad manners.

Former President Jimmy Carter has just released a new book, We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan that Will Work in which he advocates a straightforward solution: Israel should embrace the Quartet [Russia, the UN, the EU and the US]. The plan is backed by a group known simply as The Elders, an NGO started by Nelson Mandela in 2007 to promote peace and assist in conflict resolution and funded partly by British entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

Jimmy Carter, we can have peace (without you) in the Holy Land

Jerusalem Post Michael D Evans

Former President Jimmy Carter has just released a new book, We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan that Will Work in which he advocates a straightforward solution: Israel should embrace the Quartet [Russia, the UN, the EU and the US].

The plan is backed by a group known simply as The Elders, an NGO started by Nelson Mandela in 2007 to promote peace and assist in conflict resolution and funded partly by British entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson, who originally proposed the idea for the group, and musician Peter Gabriel. Jimmy Carter and the Carter Center are heavily involved with this endeavor; Carter is one of three appointed ‘Elders’ to the Middle East. The delegation currently in Israel accompanying Carter includes South African Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu and former Irish president Mary Robinson (who recenty received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from US President Barack Obama despite strong objections by Jewish groups over her leadership role in the 2001 UN Durban Review).

The group’s objectives were met with skepticism by Israelis, but according to Carter, were eagerly embraced by the “Palestinians, peace groups and human rights activists in the region.”

How could he ask the Jewish people to embrace a group known as The Elders? The controversial Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is the biggest best-selling book in a bigoted world, and is charged with fueling anti-Semitism.

CARTER’S PLAN is to allow the Quartet to solve the Middle East conflict, plain and simple. He calls for peace-loving organizations such as Hizbullah and Hamas and states like Iran and Syria to be involved in the negotiating process in order to bring peace to the Holy Land. The Quartet, Hizbullah, Hamas, Syria, Iran – according to Carter, everybody but Israel can bring peace.

For Israelis only, Carter reserves the word ‘radicals’ in his book. He also calls former prime minister Menachem Begin by the same abjective and then describes him as the “most notorious terrorist in the region.” Of course, he said the British said that, not him. Carter goes on to describe Binyamin Netanyahu as a “key political associate and naysayer” who was strongly opposed to Israel relinquishing control over the Sinai.

It appears that Jimmy Carter is revising history. The Binyamin Netanyahu I know was attending college during the Camp David meetings in the late 1970s. In fact, when I recommended him to Begin for a government job, the prime minister did not even know who Netanyahu was. I have no idea how Carter was so aware of Binyamin Netanyahu’s political ideology; he was selling furniture at the time to help fund his schooling.

The former president also writes that at the time, Begin agreed to divide Jerusalem. I found that to be astonishing, especially since Begin had given me a copy of the letter he penned to Jimmy Carter on September 17, 1978, in which he wrote, “Dear Mr. President, on the basis of this law, the government of Israel decreed in July 1967 that Jerusalem is one city indivisible, the capital of the State of Israel.” According to Begin, Carter informed him that the US government did not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Begin told me he responded, “Excuse me sir, but the State of Israel does not recognize your non-recognition.”

Carter further charges that Begin agreed to a freeze on building Jewish settlements but Begin told me he had not agreed to a total freeze; he only agreed not to build new settlements for three months, during the negotiations.

Carter also gives the impression that he and Begin were close friends by saying that Begin and then Egyptian president Anwar Sadat visited him in Plains to reaffirm the personal commitments each had made to the other, which I found quite humorous.

Begin told me he had refused to meet with Carter when the president traveled to Jerusalem. At that time, he was no longer prime minister but was outraged that Carter had misrepresented the events during their meetings.

COULD IT be that Jimmy Carter’s ideals are formulated by the number of zeros before the decimal on the contributions to the Carter Center by oil-rich Gulf States? These same states do not now, nor will they ever, allow Jews to worship freely within their borders no matter how much land Israel relinquishes. It is then surprising and hypocritical to call Israel an “apartheid state” and to infer that the region’s only democratic country is an obstacle to peace – thus the only solution to the Middle East conflict is through intervention.

Carter’s final plea is for President Barack Obama to “shape a comprehensive peace effort between Israel and the Palestinians…then use persuasion and enticements to reach these reasonable goals with the full backing of other members of the International Quartet and the Arab nations.”

It is likely he would call on The Elders for their expertise. The best thing President Obama could do is completely ignore Jimmy Carter and his plan.

Please see my previous posts on Richard Branson’s Global “Elders”

Richard Branson’s Global ‘Council of Elders’

Former President Jimmy Carter (Global Elders) said he is planning a return trip to Gaza in an effort to focus international attention on what he describes as a humanitarian crisis.

Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, and Other Global Council of Elders Slam Christian Churches for Not Ordaining Women

The Elders a group of eminent global leaders say Religious and traditional practices discriminate against women and girls

Former President Jimmy Carter (One of the ‘Global Elders’) On The Gospel Of Oppression!

Evangelical Leaders Rebuke President Carter (One of the Global ‘elders’) for ‘Reckless’ Discrimination Claims

The Elders – a group of eminent global leaders brought together by Nelson Mandela – have announced plans to visit Israel, the West Bank and Gaza at the end of August

A delegation of former global leaders is to arrive in Israel and the West Bank Monday to garner public support for peace between Israel and its neighbors. The delegation is part of an organization known as the Elders

President Obama’s naïve efforts to appease the Arabs by bullying and distancing the United States from Israel has backfired. However despite increasing unease extending to some of Obama’s most fervent supporters, the administration has yet to signal any change in policy.

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

Jerusalem Post By Isi Leiber

Candidly speaking: There may be worse to come

President Obama’s naïve efforts to appease the Arabs by bullying and distancing the United States from Israel has backfired. However despite increasing unease extending to some of Obama’s most fervent supporters, the administration has yet to signal any change in policy.

The futility of trying to appease tyrannies is evident everywhere; the thuggish behavior of the Iranian regime toward its own people makes a farce of Obama’s efforts to reason with Ahmadinejad; in response to unilateral US overtures to the Syrians, President Assad visited the Iranian president, congratulated him on his bogus reelection and declared that their alliance had never been stronger; the North Koreans displayed utter contempt for Obama’s friendly outreach; Arabs states all responded negatively to Obama’s entreaties to provide a few crumbs of recognition in return for Israeli concessions; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was publicly humiliated by the Saudi Foreign Minister, who insisted there was nothing to negotiate unless Israel accepted all Arab demands.

The Palestinian response was even more noxious. Clearly emboldened, the Fatah General Assembly displayed contempt for any initiative that could further the peace process. Their intransigence again demonstrated the absurdity of the notion that this corrupt and duplicitous leadership could be a genuine peace partner. There were even elements of surrealism when the Fatah Assembly unanimously accused Israel of having assassinated Arafat and provided standing applause for a mass murderer.

They decreed that unless Israel acceded to all their demands, no further negotiations would take place and they could renew the “armed struggle.” Far from encouraging Arab moderation, Obama’s tough approach to Israel simply bolstered the hardliners.

The facts on the ground today make prospects for peace more remote than ever. The only clear message emerging from the Fatah Congress is that, as with Hamas, elimination of Jewish sovereignty in the region remains its ultimate objective. Were that not so, Mahmoud Abbas would have accepted Ehud Olmert’s offer, which virtually granted him all his territorial demands and even hinted at a compromise over the Arab right of return.

Obama’s advisers must have been bitterly disappointed when their diktats against Israel backfired. Indeed, their one-sided demands and bullying tactics can take credit for having created a rare consensus among the Israeli public, which today overwhelmingly supports Netanyahu.

To add to Obama’s problems and despite predictions to the contrary, American Jewish leaders have begun to openly challenge some of his policies. There is a growing unease even among some Jewish Democrats that Obama is betraying the unequivocal undertakings he made during the elections to faithfully preserve the alliance with Israel.

This was exemplified in remarks made by Howard Berman, the influential Democratic chair of the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, who in a closed meeting with Jewish leaders explicitly criticized the Obama administration’s pressure on Israel over settlements. Berman said Abbas was now “waiting for the US to present him Israel on a platter”. Stanley Hoyer, the Democratic House majority leader visiting Israel, made similar comments at a Jerusalem news conference.

OBAMA MUST also have been stunned when his friend and loyal supporter Alan Solow, the Chairman of the Presidents Conference representing 52 major American Jewish organizations, condemned his demands to limit Jews settlements in Jerusalem and its suburbs.

In a full page New York Times advert Abe Foxman of the Anti Defamation League stated “The problem is not settlements, it’s Arab rejection…Mr. President, it’s time to stop pressuring our vital friend and ally”. David Harris of the American Jewish Committee expressed similar feelings to a Congressional group. Whilst usually ritually reiterating their belief that Obama would not abandon Israel, Jewish leaders have begun openly criticizing the administration’s behavior toward the Jewish state.

Obama’s standing with American Jewish activists plummeted further when, contemptuously dismissing a rare virtually unanimous Jewish protest, he personally participated in the ceremony honoring former Irish president and 2001 UN Durban hate-fest convener Mary Robinson with the highest human rights award in the US. This was perceived as yet another manifestation of Obama’s new love affair with the UN and its anti-Israel affiliates.

It must also have been disappointing for Obama’s Jewish advisers promoting the J Street line when they became aware that despite expensive media promotions, opinion polls indicated that most Jewish activists remained contemptuous of the left-wing Jewish fringe groups urging Obama to force Israel to make further concessions.

However, as of now, while continuing to avoid any initiative which could irritate the Arabs, the US is maintaining its heavy-handed approach toward its erstwhile ally, Israel. While a face-saving compromise may soon eventuate, appreciating the unprecedented backing he currently enjoys from his constituency, Netanyahu would be unwise to capitulate to Obama’s demands.

Alas, irrespective of the settlement issues, there may be worse to come from this administration. After Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s recent warm meeting with Obama in Washington, he effusively praised the policy changes introduced by the president and hinted of further impending “positive” US initiatives.

There are also chilling predictions that without prior consultations with Israel, Obama intends to unilaterally submit a US plan for a comprehensive settlement at the UN or elsewhere. It is rumored that this plan would use as a starting point the irresponsible offers made to Abbas by Olmert during the death throes of his tenure – offers which would unquestionably have been repudiated by the Knesset and people of Israel in a referendum. Such a move would be an unprecedented betrayal of a long-standing ally.

UNTIL SUCH time as a genuine Palestinian peace partner emerges, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu cannot be expected to create a miraculous magic plan which would bring about a comprehensive final settlement. But his task now must be to preempt a disastrous imposed settlement by the Americans.

In doing so he must he speedily identify the red lines which his government, backed by the vast majority of Israelis, would never contemplate crossing.

To this end he should also martial the support of the mainstream American Jewish leadership and encourage them to convey to their president that they too have red lines. They have already begun to signal that they will not remain passive if their government attempts to unilaterally impose a solution which could endanger the Jewish state.

Switch to our mobile site