Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship, says radical Muslims would make better theologians than most Christians in America.
In his new book, The Faith, the prominent evangelical observes that radical Islamists have a better understanding of the Muslim faith than most Christians in America have of Christianity.
A study by Barna Group shows that 60 percent of Americans fail to name five of the Ten Commandments, cites Colson in his book.
His own interaction with those he deemed as mature Christians also confirmed that many believers are not sure what the biblical core beliefs are.
"One of the problems in the churches today is that we don't know what we believe and why we believe it and why it matters," said Colson in a statement for his book. "The result of that is the culture defines us. We are put in a stereotypical pot by the media and, of course, mischaracterized totally by the aggressive atheists who are publishing their books."
Ignorance of biblical knowledge can lead to a crippled worldview, according to Colson in his book, that prevents Christians from defending their faith against cultural threats such as postmodernism and Islamo-fascism.
"The Christian West is under assault by the twin challenges of secularism and radical Islam," he writes in The Faith. "Only through Christianity, I believe, can Western Europe and America meet these desperate challenges."
In his book, Colson calls on churches to meet these challenges by returning to what he terms "radical Christianity" or orthodox Christianity. Basic truths as handed down from teachings of the early Apostles are discussed in the book, which is co-authored by Harold Fickett.
While skeptics may perceive a return to orthodoxy to be anti-progressive, Colson asserts that "progress does not always mean discovering something new."
"Sometimes it means rediscovering wisdom that is ancient and eternal," he writes.
According to the author, the book serves to provide new theological grounding for Christians and appeal to non-believers who are interested in the basic beliefs of Christianity.
The book, which hit bookstores earlier this month, is also accompanied by a free online study guide which is available through Zondervan. Pastors and church leaders are encouraged to use the guide in conjunction with the book in their small groups and Sunday school classes.
RSS
RBB,
We need to be cautious with everything that we read; there is so much deception taking place. Lord help us all. I also agree that we should be helping all those in need.
Online4Him - It was his description of the book "Ecumenical Jihad" and the recommendation Colson wrote on the back.
I still feel the same way about working to help others, with anyone who is willing. But my view of Colson is much more cautious.
RBB,
What was it in this sermon that raised an eyebrow for you?
RBB,
Lol - I don't mind when others disagree with me; we have been discussing various issues that concern us both. I do agree with your post; that we are saved through what “Jesus Christ” alone has done in our behalf and we are adopted into the family of God by faith alone. Our works are done out of pure gratitude for what Christ has already done for us and our works do not give us any merit before God. Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice is all “sufficient” and has paid our debt. All the praise, glory, honor, dominion, and power both now and throughout eternity belong to Jesus Christ “alone”.
Online4Him-
If you had sent me the link to this sermon I wouldn't have been disagreeing with you on Colson.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=3907235851
Online4Him - Would you agree with the following statement? If not please explain where you think it's incorrect.
We agree that justification is not earned by any good works or merits of our own; it is entirely God's gift, conferred through the Father's sheer graciousness, out of the love that he bears us in his Son, who suffered on our behalf and rose from the dead for our justification. Jesus was "put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification" (Romans 4:25). In justification, God, on the basis of Christ's righteousness alone, declares us to be no longer his rebellious enemies but his forgiven friends, and by virtue of his declaration it is so.
The New Testament makes it clear that the gift of justification is received through faith. "By grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8). By faith, which is also the gift of God, we repent of our sins and freely adhere to the gospel, the good news of God's saving work for us in Christ. By our response of faith to Christ, we enter into the blessings promised by the gospel. Faith is not merely intellectual assent but an act of the whole person, involving the mind, the will, and the affections, issuing in a changed life. We understand that what we here affirm is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by justification by faith alone (solafide).
Now Paul explains the means whereby God pardons us. We are “justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24). Paul tells us that God’s freely bestowed declaration of our innocence is the answer to our problem. Notice that this justification is not based on anything in us—not our works, nor our goodness, nor our faith, nor our foreseen faith or works, nor our future faithfulness. It is based on something else outside of us. In fact, it is a gift. You don’t earn, deserve, merit or contribute to God’s gift. You receive it by faith as a gift of His grace.
But Paul doesn’t leave it there; he emphatically points our eyes away from ourselves to the cross of Christ for justification. We are, he says, “justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith . . . to demonstrate His righteousness” (Romans 3:25,26). That is, the foundation of the solution to our problem is Christ’s satisfying of the due penalty of our sins on the cross—
RBB,
The document itself is a gloss over of the real theological issues that cannot be denied by simply stating “Evangelicals and Catholics Together”. Charles Colson and Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (Lutheran who converted to Catholicism) authored the ecumenical documents Evangelicals and Catholics Together and Evangelicals and Catholics Together II. The approval for the wording was required to come from Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy, president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for promoting Christian Unity.
The whole document is a vague in its attempt to project Christian unity that does and cannot exist from a biblical perspective. I am sure you realize that when the document proclaims under the section “We Affirm Together” – “We affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ”; this is so misleading in the sense that Protestants and Catholics understand and proclaim vastly different theological concepts of “grace” and “faith”. Not to mention the concepts of “salvation”, “justification”, and “sanctification”; I could go on and on highlighting the differences between the two but anyone who has a sound biblical knowledge will recognize the differences and the implications for accepting unbiblical dogmas (no point intended).
The ECT document seeks to provide a basis for a common front against the evils of our age, but in the process, it does away with the single means by which those goals can be obtained: the gospel. The simple fact is that Roman Catholics and Protestants, if they are honest, are far apart on the issues of the gospel. There is no unity with reference to the message we preach to the world, and it is pure make-believe to say otherwise. ECT is a deception: it lies to the world when it speaks of a unity that does not exist, and it lies to Christians when it does not properly represent the positions it attempts to make compatible. We may sympathize with the motivations of the authors, recognizing the power of the emotions evoked by abortion and other such evils; but if we wish to honor and love God, we cannot allow our sentiments to overthrow Biblical truth. Instead, Protestants such as Charles Colson should use their positions to powerfully and clearly proclaim the great truths that shook the world four centuries ago, sola gratia, sola Christi, sola fide, sola scriptura. Such would not be politically correct, but it would be Divinely Correct, and such should be the aim of the believer.
wilderness,
Well said and amen!!!!
Greetings:
Christians must be careful not to quickly unite as one in Christ with every organization that calls itself, “Christian.” If we endorse religious groups that are peppered with dangerous doctrines, compromise, and falsities, then our endorsement may influence a person to pursue and adopt their teachings. We must be careful, lest we lead someone into damnable heresies.
In addition, a Christian fellowship, led by the Holy Spirit, does not need to hold hands with religious organizations that dangerously distort sound doctrine, just to get things done in the name of Christ. Each person socially doing their part to fight against neighborhood crime or vote against immoral laws is one thing, but uniting as one in Christ under a Christian banner when some of the religious groups represented are contrary to sound doctrine is another.
Chris333 and Online4Him -
While I understand your reticence to deal with certain groups you might not agree with, or know first hand, I find it impossible to refuse to work with anyone who is willing to help another who is in need. I would never want to tell someone they would have to go hungry, or not have the clothing or shelter they needed, because I didn't agree with someone on how one is saved, or who they believe Jesus is. Further I don't believe scripture backs up failing to help others for that reason. To the contrary when Jesus told the disciples not to tell the man casting out demons in His name to stop because he wasn't one of them, I think He was making it clear that we should work with those we don't necessarily agree with. I guess we all have to do what we feel we will be comfortable answering for at the Judgment seat.
Chris333 - Concerning Calvinism I have to say that while both sides have their passages of scripture to back them up, the reform view has by far the majority, and more than that, common sense calls me in that direction as well. Without reform theology God's "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" makes no sense. His dealings with Cain and Abel, Saul and David, and others where He obviously preferred one person over another, or overlooked things they had done even when He had given a law specifically against it. All these things make sense in light of reform theology, but not when viewed through the idea that God loves all equally and it's only the free will of a person that makes the difference in how He treats them.
It also makes a very large difference with some major problems facing evangelical Christianity today. If you accept that God gives the increase, instead of placing that responsibility on man, you remove the need for the "seeker sensitive", clown church, "do anything to get them in the church and make them happy" attitude of modern evangelicalism. You can concentrate on preaching the whole Word of God and let Him deal with saving who He will. Your job is to simply deliver the gospel message, just as it was in the beginning of the church.
Online4Him - While the ecumenical moves made by groups like the Council of Churches are meant to bring denominations together in the way I think you are thinking, the document we were originally discussing hasn't any such goal as far as I can see. Could you name the part of it that you find troubling?
correction:
The “theological unity” is the underlining goal behind the “social issues” that they are presently being promoted.
RBB,
“It seems that we have bigger fish to fry here than if we don't agree on all the points of Christianity, however fundamental they are”.
There is no bigger fish than our “salvation”; the RCC does not accept salvation by faith alone as the scriptures teach. Should we be mingling with a system that sets itself up in the place of Christ? I agree that the social ills that you highlighted should be addressed by both sides but these social issues are not the “ultimate” goal of the ecumenical movement. The World Council of Churches (WCC) is the broadest and most inclusive among the many organized expressions of the modern ecumenical movement, a movement whose ultimate goal is Christian unity. As Chris333 mentioned his disinterest in working with Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses; I believe that Protestant Christians should not be seeking unity with the RCC for the very same reason. The WCC, the emergent church movement, and other world religions are attempting to develop an all inclusive faith which demotes “biblical doctrine” for unity.
The “theological unity” is the underlining goal behind the “social issues” that they are presently promoting. This movement can only subject the Word of God in order to elevate an all inclusive gospel and religion. Does this sound farfetched? Not when you consider it in light of biblical prophecy; depending on your eschatological view, this may not even make sense. However, when evangelicals begin to say that the differences that divide Protestantism and Catholicism are minor and we should not continue to highlight our theological differences; this makes me very uncomfortable. Was the Reformation a mistake or do the biblical principles that were rediscovered and proclaimed during this time period still matter? The Calvinist-Arminian debate is something that does not affect one’s salvation in Christ. Subjecting oneself to RCC’s theology is something entirely different.
RBB,
I agree with a lot of what you said, except for the "no matter how fundamental" the differences are statement. For instance I am not interested in working with Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses in the name of Christ, because quite honestly, they are not working in the name of the same Christ as Christians are. So as long as we are careful not to compromise the main points of our faith, specifically the ones we feel are completely necessary for salvation, then we can have unity. I for one am in complete support of the unity of all Christian churches. My personal stance is that the wide variety of denominations is inherently evil. Take two examples, the Lutheran and Presbyterian churches. Both sides agree that you can be a Lutheran or Presbyterian and go to heaven, only one side or neither are theologically perfect but not both. And at the same time, the differences they have are minor (mainly being ecclesiastical, which both agree is not in anyway bearing on salvation or right doctrine, and the issue of predestination). Why are they separate? Why do we have such a thing as a "Lutheran" church. Certainly we will not tell God when we are in heaven, "I am a Lutheran" or "I am a Presbyterian" rather we will say, "I am a believer in Christ, a Christian". As well, Paul calls for us to be unified, and God calls for us to be unified. I restate that it is only evil that causes the denominations to exist, there is no good in it.
RBB,
I have to step out for now; I will respond to your post later this afternoon :)
Chris333,
You are welcome to join our friendly discussion here. I agree with your post - well said! A brief summary was given to explain my position on the Calvinist and Arminian debate. The reason for the brief summary was to zero in on the compromise that is taking place by “some” evangelicals and their eagerness to rub shoulders with Rome. The “ECT” document is a poor attempt to iron out the historical division between these two camps. In my opinion, the RCC will never change (theologically); unfortunately, “Protestants” are the ones compromising biblical truth in order to appear acceptable to the RCC.
Online4Him - I think the main problem here may be in your use of the phrase "theological unity". As far as I can tell they are not trying to reach unity but trying to work around the differences to get things done in the name of Christ because of the things we do have in common. Don't you think that with all the evils in the world such as (in no particular order) abortion, the gay agenda, Islam, radical Atheists, Homelessness, poverty, AIDS, etc... we could get much more done in the name of Christ if we worked together and put our differences aside long enough to get something good done to God's glory. It seems that we have bigger fish to fry here than if we don't agree on all the points of Christianity, however fundamental they are.
The objections I'm referring to have to do with the comparison being made on the videos you posted, concerning the panel's reform position vs the non-reform view, and how it parallels the difficulties that they, and you, have with the Protestant - Catholic questions being raised by this document. Case in point would be, as I pointed out originally, they are concentrating on the difference in the works vs faith issue, but that is also a major issue in the Calvinist-Arminian debate and since it's an all Reform panel they could just as easily have been discussing that. So I wondered what you thought of that position in relationship to this.
Hey RBB and Online4him,
If I can jump in here, I like the reformed arminian debate myself and think it is important to discuss. Firstly, it is inescapable that God is completely sovereign and can do absolutely anything, and has infinite knowledge. At face value, this would force the concept of "predestination" which is what seems to divide the Calvinists and Arminians. However it is not necessarily true, for instance, Christians believe that God is constant and that He is perfectly good. If He is perfectly good, then He must be limited because He cannot be evil. We do not see this as a contradiction, but rather, we say that God "limits" Himself in this way, or in some manner, "chooses" this way. Using similar reasoning, God could be all powerful, and choose for us to have freewill, in order to have a true loving relationship with us.
This is not to say that the Calvinist side is wrong, but only that it is not necessary. The reformed side says something along the lines of, "God is in complete control, and all things are "predestined" but man is also fully responsible for his actions and fully "doing" those actions" This is a possible stance as well.
My position is that either way makes no difference. The scriptures are not clear enough to say definitely either way, and it is not really necessary either way. Both sides state clearly that salvation is a completely free gift, and that all of the praise and honor is due to God. Both sides believe we should work with all fervor to reach others with the Gospel, and become better Christians in our daily lives, and both sides believe that salvation is by faith in Christ alone, and not by works. Wether God "allows" us to make that choice by our own freewill, or whether God "makes" us choose, it makes little difference. Calvinists do not say that Arminians are going to go to hell for their beliefs, nor do Arminians claim that Calvinists will. So what is the big deal? Both sides are working for God and believe in His complete authority.
RBB,
“I'm still hoping for an answer on your view of reform theology because as I wrote, it seems to be connected to at least some of the objections.”
. . . some of the objections.
Can you share with me your understanding of which objections that you believe that I am making?
I believe in the sovereignty of God. However, I believe that God (out of His sovereignty) created us with a complete free will. This free will gives us the true ability to accept or reject God. This choice is not a preprogrammed choice, but rather it is a choice made from a truly free heart. To answer your question; I may be somewhere in between. My very first post on this article is highlighting the evident disregard of biblical truth when Protestants interact with other groups who teach extra biblical dogmas.
My objections are biblically based and one need not be a Calvinist or Arminian to see that theological unity between Protestantism and Catholicism cannot be achieved unless there is compromise. Unfortunately, some of the signatories of the “ECT” document do not seem to recognize this. Can they work together in some way? Yes; combating social ills, such as poverty and crime. Yet both communions have been doing this work throughout their history apart from one another; to unite on this basis alone is not crucial. Rest assured; the ecumenical movement will continue to grow and gain support at the expense of biblical truth. We see this taking place as we speak and we know what the end result will be; a unified system in opposition the Most High – Revelation 13:1-9.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them – Romans 16:17.
Divisions are created by teachings that are contrary to sound doctrine.
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son – 2John 1:9.
Unity in the faith is impossible without the doctrine of Christ. Without such a foundation we have no basis for the faith, for the gospel, for knowing Jesus, or for knowing anything pertinent to the Truth.
Online4Him - No I don't. It seems pretty clear from the document that Colson and the other Protestants that signed it don't either, particularly with the list they give of the main things that the sides don't agree on. The point is that there is some common ground between us, and they are trying to find the things they do have in common, and see if they can work together in spite of the differences. They aren't seeking unity so much as trying to find out if they can at least get to a point of working together. Do you disagree that they should have discussion or work together in any way?
I'm still hoping for an answer on your view of reform theology because as I wrote, it seems to be connected to at least some of the objections.
RBB,
I am referring to the "document" and before we begin discussing reform theology, Calvinism, Arminianism, monergism, and synergism. My whole point is that there are some Evangelicals who are seeking unity with Rome; this unity is nothing more than a compromise of biblical truth. Do you believe that Rome has the true gospel? This is the compromise that these men are permitting when they align themselves with those who deny the essentials of the faith. Do you support the dogmas of purgatory, indulgences, transubstantiation, tradition being equal to the scriptures, the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, the pope being the head of the church, adoration of Mary, etc?
Online4Him - I watched the 2 parts of this program that you provided links to and also found the document itself online. Question - Are you commenting on the document or are you commenting on the program?
The reason I ask is the three people on the panel all adhere to the Reform branch of Protestantism and what they are saying is also clearly Calvinist. Are you a Calvinist or Arminian? While they are saying that one problem they are having with this document is that faith "alone" rather than simply faith are two very different things, what they are also arguing is for monergism rather than for synergism. So this problem could very easily be not only between Catholics and Protestants but also between those who believe that God alone saves, which is true of reform theology, and those that believe that God is aided by man which is the non-reform view. Which do you hold to?
RBB,
I have not read any of Mr. Colson’s books; the compromise that I am speaking of can be understood by reviewing the document – Evangelicals and Catholics Together. This document is vague and a misrepresentation of the gospel of Christ; the language that is used in this document is not theologically clear. I mean it does not address the historical and theological positions that these two communions truly believe. Using the same terminology such as “salvation is by faith” has a vast difference of meaning that these two communions believe and declare. No true Protestant that has a sound understanding of biblical salvation can unite with any group that has extra biblical and unbiblical dogmas. Mr. Colson was one of the signatories of this document. Watching these two videos which speak of this document and the issues that are being ignored will give you an understanding of what I am referring to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZPkNA9qotU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBqbXwsFIXg&NR=1
For Christians, Muslims are funny people. They said Muhammad is their prophet and is a perfect human being. But why oh why does every Muslim after their prayer (salat) always plead to their God Allah to give Muhammad the high place in his grave, a position that was promised to Muhammad during his lifetime.
Please check out this verse from Sahih Bukhari, and I guarantee you the translation is perfect
Allahumma rabba hazihi ad-da'wah at-tammah wa as-salati al-qa;imah, ati Muhammadan al-wasilah wa al-fadhilah wab'athhu maqaman mahmudan allzi wa'adtah (Sahih Bukhari)
Why would anybody want to convert to Islamism when Muhammad himself cannot get to this good position in his grave? Certainly very funny.
Muhammad himself is just another dead people and is going to answer to God about his actions
If you are addressing that question to me, "No, I have not read his book." I have read where there are a number of people who feel as though there are people of other religious beliefs who are more faithful to their religion than Christians are to theirs. I am not debating whether it is true or not, but we, as true Christians, need to live by the Word of God to the best of our ability. Instead, many of us dilute the Word, because we don't really want to live the way the Bible tells us to. We like to live the way we choose to live, so we pick and choose what we want to live by. Many Muslims seem to be very serious and hard core with their beliefs. Many so-called christians seem to have the attitude, if it feels good, do it. They don't want the rest of society to be able to speak against it either. We are too concerned with offending others, so many true Christians just sit idly by without saying anything or putting up any kind of a fight for Bible values or our own rights. We allow the minority of people in the USA to take away many of the religious rights we once use to have in the country. I have read where other countries, who used to not have as much religious freedom, are gaining more religious freedom, while our country is having our religious freedoms taken away little by little. We complain about it somewhat, but we don't really put up much of a fight. We raise more of a stink over gas prices going up than we do losing our religious freedoms. I have had customers call in complaining about being done wrong over something rather petty, while we sit quietly by while our religious freedoms are being stripped away. I bet the Muslims, etc. would fight, while the rest of us just choose to whimper. That's the compromise.
Online4Him - Have you read this book or any others books he's written? I ask because "The Body" is actually one that I believe you would agree with, as it comes out against what we would now think of as "seeker sensitive", as well as other kinds of Christianity that are weakening the fabric of the faith in this country. Could you give an example of the compromise that has resulted from his work. I'm just trying to understand where you think he's doing any damage by being willing to discuss with those that he might not agree with. After all the same could be said of us. We come to this site and discuss with many who do not agree with what we believe.
You might find it ironic that your quote is the same one that he uses both in the book as a jumping off point, and on the cover.
I wouldn't doubt that to be true, and if it is true, it is so SAD. We always make things way more difficult than necessary. Jesus could have went around trying to prove things, but He didn't. He just lived His life, while on earth with us, the way His Word tells us to live. He showed us how to live our lives by His Holy example. We need to read and study His Word, and learn from Him. When we get through reading and studying the Bible, we need to do it again. We aren't going to be perfect, but when we fail, we need to ask for forgiveness and get back on track. I guess it is human nature to want to make things more difficult than they have to be, to over-analyse things, or to want to beat a dead horse........but when it is all said and done, we just need to obey His Word.
RBB,
I thank you for your thoughts and concerns regarding this article and those mentioned in it; but as I mentioned in my first post, it is impossible to merge biblical Christianity with any faith that teaches extra biblical or unbiblical dogmas. It appears that some "evangelicals" are compromising essential Christian truths for unity. Mr. Colson’s ecumenical activities are well documented and compromise has been the result.
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints – Jude 1:3.
Online4Him - Be careful, while I fully agree that discernment is needed in this day and age, I would read Ingrid's blog with a grain of salt. Is it really necessary to trash a person because they went to a conference you didn't think they should? Maybe he was there to try to change minds, goodness knows someone should try to reason with those guys.
Before saying anything else about this book, both the reporter who wrote the article, and those reading it should actually read the book (or in the case of the reporter, more than just the first chapter, as everything commented on is from that chapter) I haven't finished it yet, and haven't decided what I think about it, but think that if you're going to judge at least read the whole thing.
Valkyrie1966,
Thanks for posting this link -
http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?p=343
It is a shame for those who claim to be orthodox in their theology but then deny the truths of God’s Word by their constant mingling and acceptance of unbiblical groups.
I like Colson. In fact, I think every Christian should read his book, How Now Shall We Live.
However, I have to disagree with him on this one. A theologian, by definition, is one who gives a reasoned discourse about God. According to my beliefs and the Bible there is only one true God. How can a Muslim give a reasoned discourse on that which is false to begin with? Have you ever read the Koran? It’s wild nonsense.
The only redeeming factor is that if a Muslim is genuinely seeking truth they will eventually bump into Jesus as He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Christians need to better at representing, not reasoning.
Trying to shame Christians into a better relationship with God by comparing is also a false premise. Romans 2:4 says, “...the goodness of God leads you to repentance.”
I honestly believe God is less worried about His Church than Colson and Barna. Reason goes out the window when you realize that a Muslim must die for his/her “god” so they can get to heaven. Our God died for us!
Colson says we don't know our faith, but does he?
http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?p=343
Based upon what I have read in this blog so far, I would say that Colson is right.
And for any Muslim who decide to contribute to this feedback.
Can we ask you this. As a good Muslim do you obey this verse from Hadith about what Muhammad said regarding Jews?
Hadith Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
“According to the author, the book serves to provide new theological grounding for Christians and appeal to non-believers who are interested in the basic beliefs of Christianity.”
What “new” theological grounding is he speaking of?
This is another example of Colson’s ecumenical activities in which he has neglected sound biblical truths in order to achieve unity.
My friends, the only way to label a Catholic an Evangelical is to change the historical definition of both terms. The declarations of its councils, such as Trent and Vatican II, leave no doubt of this. Secularism cannot be defeated with a disobedient alliance between true and false Christianity.
Meanwhile From Indonesia,
We heard new information from the mosque loudspeakers yesterday. The loudspeakers are extra loud yesterday.
They said the Great Satan is having another Muslim into their Congress.
Stupid people of Minnesota voted Keith Ellison in Congress, now there is another Indiana Muslim Andre Carson who is going to be voted into Congress.
Nice eh, Megamosque programs are kicking in already.
They took down your trade center towers, and now the Muslim are into changing your law together with the sodomites.
If Colson is such a great Christian theologian himself, why did he take the million dollar Templeton Prize in religion by an avowed New Spirituality guru at the Parliament of World Religions a few years ago in Chicago? Why was Colson in Robert Schuller's Crystal Cathedral just a few weeks ago for the ReThink conference? Robert Schuller's heretical book, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation redefined sin as anything that takes away one's self-esteem. Now that's real biblical. Further, Schuller featured New Age teacher Dr. Jerry Jampolsky on his Hour of Power as recently as 2004 and is offering his book "Forgiveness" right now on the Crystal Cathedral bookstore website. the book is forwarded by Neale Donald Walsch, one of the world's leading New Age authors! Schuller's guest Jampolsky introduced millions to the occult Course in Miracles, currently being taught by Oprah Winfrey on her XM satellite network program. It takes a lot of ginger to accuse others of not understanding cardinal Christian doctrine when Colson has been all too willing to cut theological corners in his desire to rub shoulders in the corridors of power. Physician, heal thyself, is what I say.
Chuck Colson might be talking about fellow inmates in US prison only. I for one do not share his views. For Christians, Muslims are funny people. They said Muhammed is their prophet and is a perfect human being. But why oh why does every Muslim after their prayer (salat) always plead to their God Allah to give Muhammad the high place in the cemetery, a position that was promised to Muhammad during his lifetime.
Please check out this verses from Sahih Bukhari, and I guarantee you the translation is pefect
Allahumma rabba hazihi ad-da`wah at-tammah wa as-salati al-qa’imah, ati Muhammadan al-wasilah wa al-fadhilah wab`athhu maqaman mahmudan allzi wa`adtah (Sahih Bukhari)
How can anybody want to convert to Islamism when Muhammed himself cannot get to this good position in his grave? Certainly very funny.
In Christian faith, the Lord and the prophets do not need help and is the One who is giving help.
Khanson,
Secularists and Islamists are against Christians. Secularism says no God, Christianity says God, they are fundamentally separate, yes they interact and yes they can treat each other with dignity, but the bottom line is that they are at odds. The secularist's goal is not the same as Christian's goal. For that matter, Islam is most certainly against Christianity. Islam views Christians as people of "the book" who's message was tainted. It views them as second class citizens and if you truly believe in Muhammad then you will impose the taxes and subdugate Christians and Jews. The beliefs of Christianity and Islam are also glaringly opposite, one says that the only way to heaven is belief in Jesus Christ, the other says that by doing good things that Muhammad said, Gabriel said, that God said to do.
You said humans need a perfect example, by which to live life with perfection? Well I am not sure about you, but I have a perfect example in Jesus Christ and I am still unable to live in perfection, though I strive daily. I hope you do not believe that Muhammad was perfect, that may be blasphemous by the Quran. And if being perfect is the standard by which you go to heaven, then it is an impossible one, I am sure you have done wrong somewhere.
Finally you said that the example Almighty The-God gives must be perfect, otherwise humans would be in a constant state of trial and error. Christianity has had its low points, that is for sure, but it was only when the Christians were not following the Bible and the truth God gave. Radical Islamists are trying with all of their might to live by the Quran, they justify everything they do with a thorough understanding of the Quran, Saudia Arabia and Iran are probably the most strictly Muslim countries in the world, and look where it has gotten them. There are gross human's rights violations, an incredible lack of scientific discovery and progress, and if it weren't for their oil, then they would be very poor indeed.
You must understand Khanson, you are right on many points, that it is only by God's intervention that man has hope, that a blessed life on earth will only come from following God's word, and that perfection is needed to enter heaven. You have failed to realize though that the required perfection is impossible, the word of God is the Bible, which has not been corrupted, and that God did intervene in the person of Jesus Christ, and He is all we need for salvation, only by faith.
It is true that all of the radical Muslims would abide by their tenets of religion and would not indulge into loose talks but they would talk only what they know about their religion. But I do not agree that secularists and Islamists are against Christians. It is the work of Secularists that millions of Muslims are thronging to west and millions of Christians moving to East to pread their ideologies. Otherwise, they would have been confined to their own "No-Go" regions.
Every human born in this world must follow a line of personal actions to live in tranquility in this world and the world hereafter. The basic concept of human life in this world is to maintain a life style which is in conformity with the compliance of Almighty The-God. Whole universe what we know and what we do not foresee, all belong to The-God. Those humans who are making their choices to recognize their Lord The-God must find educational resources to enrich their knowledge about His Almighty so that every moment of human life is passed with goodness.
Goodness is the perception and dream of every human in this life. That dream could only be achieved when human is not in conflict within self. The self shall be maintained pure by abidance of life principles recommended by Almighty The-God. When human abides by such principles of life, conscious becomes clear, self confidence evolves, futuristic events become understandable and human life is fully consoled.
Consolation in human life starts through following an example by which Almighty The-God has practically shown to the humankind. That example must be perfect otherwise very talk of human consolation would end up in trial and error. Human life is such a short span that trial and error policy is not worthy of any practice with relation to Almighty The-God. Human needs a perfect example by which it is possible to live this life with perfection and life in the hereafter is beneficially guaranteed. Otherwise, no one is sure of his life span in this world, it revolves around one’s devised plan by The-God and its consequential fate (Qadar and Qada).