Posted on 11/14/2017 2:24:54 PM PST by nickcarraway
Robert Jeffress spent Wednesday with Donald Trump, supporting the president during his fundraising visit to the Belo Mansion in downtown Dallas. On Thursday, the First Baptist Dallas pastor and Trump's biggest evangelical supporter had to do something a lot less fun — take to the Fox News airwaves to defend himself from charges that he is anti-Catholic.
Word of Jeffress' potentially anti-Catholic views bubbled to the surface this week when a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders about her boss's continued praise for the Dallas demagogue, given Jeffress' controversial statements about the Catholic church. Sanders said that she wasn't "aware of Robert Jeffress being anti-Catholic" and that she knew that he worked with Texas Catholics on events like the anti-abortion rights demonstration March for Life.
On Fox News, Jeffress repeated Sanders' line, confirming that he works with Catholics against abortion, and said that the characterization of his thoughts about Catholicism was inaccurate.
"What they did was they went back and recycled old quotes from years ago that were either completely manufactured at the time or ripped out of context," Jeffress said.
The Observer believes that Jeffress deserves a fair hearing about whether he was taken out of context, so we've taken the liberty of transcribing, in their entirety, Jeffress' comments about Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church from a 2010 segment on his radio show Pathway to Victory.
"This is the Babylonian mystery religion that spread like a cult throughout the entire world. The high priests of that fake religion, that false religion, the high priests of that religion would wear crowns that resemble the heads of fish, that was in order to worship the fish god Dagon, and on those crowns were written the words, ‘Keeper of the Bridge,’ the bridge between Satan and man.
"That phrase, Keeper of the Bridge — the Roman equivalent of it is Pontifex Maximus. It was a title that was first carried by the Caesars and then the emperors and finally by the Bishop of the Rome, Pontifex Maximus, the Keeper of the Bridge.
"You can see where we’re going with this. It is that Babylonian mystery religion that infected the early church. One of the churches it infected was the church of Pergamos, which is one of the recipients of the Book of Revelation. And the early church was corrupted by this Babylonian mystery religion, and today the Roman Catholic Church is the result of that corruption.
"Much of what you see in the Catholic Church today doesn’t come from God’s word; it comes from that cultlike, pagan religion. Now you say, ‘Pastor, how can you say such a thing? That is such an indictment of the Catholic Church. After all, the Catholic Church talks about God and the Bible and Jesus and the blood of Christ and salvation.’
"Isn’t that the genius of Satan? If you want to counterfeit a dollar bill, you don’t do it with purple paper and red ink. You’re not going to fool anybody with that. But if you want to counterfeit money, what you do is make it look closely related to the real thing as possible.
"And that’s what Satan does with counterfeit religion. He uses, he steals, he appropriates all of the symbols of true biblical Christianity, and he changes it just enough in order to cause people to miss eternal life."
Basically, Jeffress believes that Catholicism is a counterfeit of genuine Christianity, descended from a Babylonian fish-worshiping cult. Its resemblance to the real article shows Satan's genius, Jeffress says. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the faith practiced by 70 million Americans.
It doesn’t say God hates sinners.
Those verses state that there are specific things and people who commit certain actions which God hates or abhors.
But not sinners in general.
It's like the argument that there is no such thing as "absolute truth". If someone declares this, then they are claiming what they say is absolutely true and if it cannot be (since, according to them, there IS no such thing), then there is no sense arguing about it.
I am also a Catholic who learned Christian values from my Methodist Mom. One day as a child, I told my Dad that I was praying that Mom would become a Catholic like us. He told me in no uncertain terms that I should not be saying that prayer. Rather, he said, I should pray that I would become a good Christian like my mother.
I would offer that we can love one another as Christ loves while at the same time defend the truth from those who misunderstand or pervert it. We are warned to, "Accept anyone who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of arguing over differences of opinion." (Romans 14:1). When the issue, however, is over what is doctrinally true from Scripture, we are commanded to earnestly contend for it. There is a reason for that. Even Jesus did so.
You are wrong.
Regardless, you can substitute this for do unto others... and the point remains that sound doctrine is a necessity in orde to love others as Christ loved us. Which He did in giving us doctrine, and dying for us according to doctrine because we violated doctrine.
Make your argument against Pharisaical letter-correctness versus obeying the intent of doctrine but do not oppose doctrine by saying above all we must love others as Christ loved us, which is doctrine.
By contrast, if what the world sees is people engaging in relentless arguments, they have no reason to imagine that being a Christian is anything special. It doesn’t take a spiritual transformation to create an argumentative person; the unredeemed world churns them out at a dime a dozen.
If you were arguing about simply engaging in relentless arguments then wee would have no argument, but that is not what I saw you expressing, but as opposing contentions about doctrine in general, to be forsaken for showing love, which is a false dichotomy, not taught by Scripture.
What is needed is worship of God in spirit and in Truth, and love for others according "which is according to Godliness." (1 Timothy 6:3)
And as love for God means love for His Truth, and for others, then they which keeps souls from Biblical conversion and worship and service according to Scripture must be opposed, and sound doctrine promoted, in word and in deed. Which is what Scripture charges preachers with.
If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Timothy 4:6)
Hos 9:...All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them:
Yes there are more examples (thanks) but only supports my statements that God hating souls and yet loving them is not a necessary contradiction.
So far; so good.
Considering...
It'll be too late then.
Folks better 'study' it a wee bit down here; if THEY want to be prepared!
Not to disparage your mom, but ‘...there is none good: no, not one.’
Romans 3:12, Psalms 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Eccles. 7:20
Long time no see!
Glad to have you back; pointing out the fine details of error for the lurkers.
Eh? Why do you say that? What's your picture of what Heaven is all about?
No, its all or nothing as regards being objects of abhorrence and wrath, yet love despite this.
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) (Ephesians 2:3-5) .
For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, (Titus 3:3-4)
John MacArthur, one of the better contemporary Bible teachers today though a Calvinist and not without fault, says on this,
Can God sincerely love those whom He does not intervene to save?
British Baptist leader Erroll Hulse, dealing with this very question, has written,
How can we say God loves all men when the psalms tell us He hates the worker of iniquity (Ps. 5:5)? How can we maintain that God loves all when Paul says that He bears the objects of His wrath, being fitted for destruction, with great patience (Rom. 9:22)? Even more how can we possibly accept that God loves all men without exception when we survey the acts of God’s wrath in history? Think of the deluge which destroyed all but one family. Think of Sodom and Gomorrah. With so specific a chapter as Romans [1,] which declares that sodomy is a sign of reprobation, could we possibly maintain that God loved the population of the two cities destroyed by fire? How can we possibly reconcile God’s love and His wrath? Would we deny the profundity of this problem? (Erroll Hulse, “The Love of God for All Mankind,” Reformation Today [Nov–Dec 1983], 18–19).
Yet Hulse realizes that if we take Scripture at face value, there is no escaping the conclusion that God’s love extends even to sinners whom He ultimately will condemn. “The will of God is expressed in unmistakable terms,” Hulse writes. “He has no pleasure in the destruction and punishment of the wicked” (Ez. 18:32; 33:11). Hulse also cites Matthew 23:37, where Jesus weeps over the city of Jerusalem, then says, “We are left in no doubt that the desire and will of God is for man’s highest good, that is his eternal salvation through heeding the gospel of Christ.” (Ibid., 21–22)
It is crucial that we accept the testimony of Scripture on this question, for as Hulse points out,
We will not be disposed to invite wayward transgressors to Christ, or reason with them, or bring to them the overtures of the gospel, unless we are convinced that God is favorably disposed to them. Only if we are genuinely persuaded that He will have them to be saved are we likely to make the effort. If God does not love them it is hardly likely that we will make it our business to love them. Especially is this the case when there is so much that is repulsive in the ungodliness and sinfulness of Christ-rejecters. (Ibid., 18)
Biblically, we cannot escape the conclusion that God’s benevolent, merciful love is unlimited in extent. He loves the whole world of humanity. This love extends to all people in all times. It is what Titus 3:4 refers to as “the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind.” God’s singular love for the elect quite simply does not rule out a universal love of sincere compassion—and a sincere desire on God’s part to see every sinner turn to Christ. - https://www.gty.org/library/questions/QA193/does-god-love-whom-he-does-not-save
And contrary to the premise that conveying God's hatred of sin and thus properly to the sinner is opposed to conveying His love for the same, in upholding the holiness and justice of God and the thus need for His mercy, and showing His unconditional love toward sinners, no less than the revivalist Jonathan Edwards preaches in his most famous sermon (read in monotone voice),
The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you were suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God’s hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell...
Many are daily coming from the east, west, north and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. How awful is it to be left behind at such a day! To see so many others feasting, while you are pining and perishing! To see so many rejoicing and singing for joy of heart, while you have cause to mourn for sorrow of heart, and howl for vexation of spirit! How can you rest one moment in such a condition? Are not your souls as precious as the souls of the people at Suffield, where they are flocking from day to day to Christ? - SINNERS IN THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GOD by the Jonathan Edwards A Sermon Preached at Enfield, July 8th, 1741: https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/edwards_jonathan/Sermons/Sinners.cfm
Got it!
Best part of my day!
Friends of yours?
A most excellent post though Calvinists rarely have any faults. ;O)
If I may add something that is often overlooked in God’s salvation; while God may love and sincerely offer His salvation to all men, the truth of the matter is that men hate God. We find this in Romans, “though they knew God they did not honor him...” among many other places in scripture. Moses tells the Israelites in Deut 30-32 that though the commandments are not hard to keep they will not keep them. Men love the darkness rather than the light (John 1).
So God isn’t predisposed to love us when we constantly hate and revile Him. He hates our deliberate and willful disobedience to all that is good and loving and holy. And who can really blame Him? It is ONLY because of His grace that He changes the hearts of any of us for we all are a very wicked people.
God’s very nature is love.
As humans we are not disposed to love those who don’t love us, but Jesus addressed that in the Beatitudes.
And I don’t think we can anthropomorphize God like that.
The motivating factor in God’s plan for redemption is His love for His creation.
Yes, God hates sin and He is angry when people do that which destroys the work of His hands and goes against His will. And such disobedience must be punished to satisfy His justice, but He doesn’t do it because He hates us. Also the definition of *hate* in Scripture from the Greek, does NOT necessarily indicate the kind of hate we mean when we use the term.
The big danger I see in people pushing the *God hates* scenario is that it will justify that person’s hatred or callous indifference to others who have not yet been redeemed. And sadly, I see a lot of that kind of attitude from self-professed Calvinists. I have not had the experience of finding them overall, as a warm, loving, caring group of people.
Sorry I missed this story, and thank you for your service to this country, but what you described is simply not opposed to substantive pointed debates here with militant Catholics here, while being able to have congenial relationships with reasonable ones in person.
You engaged in debate with militant atheists to a degree, which affirms debate is sanctioned, if with the right spirit, and if it was with members of a group who were likewise devout and contentious that submission to their one true elitist church ensured salvation and was required of you, then if were not one of them you would debate them. Yet which need not mean you cannot have good friendships with them, at least in person, and who may be allies when it comes to political moral issues. Which hs been my experience.
You may allow debate btwn militant atheists and a Catholic, but would you not do so with a evangelizing Mormon? And if so, then were do you draw the line?
A couple weeks ago on a different forum RedLegHunter and I were debating a "evangelical" who insisted born again Christians no longer sin (though they can "trespass" against others), and who continued with his assertions though clearly substantively and reasonably refuted more than once, by the grace of God. Should we have ignored him? Others are watching, and this thread could be found on Google searches, so no.
Likewise when members of a group advertise, promote or contend for their church, especially as traditionalist, which teaches their church is uniquely the one true one, and damns those who persistently resist her elitist claims, including that a proper ritual, even without personal repentant faith, makes one actually good enough to be with God, and thus the same usually need to become so after death thru purifying torments, and do not even consider Prot churches worth of the proper name "church," then are we who hold that God purifies the heart by personal repentant faith, and reject ( Catholic distinctives not seen in the inspired record of the NT church ) to keep silent, and let others be deceived?
Would I expect Catholics (if not agree with all they say) to not debate Mormonic claims to be the unique one true church.
A rhetorical question, and thus the issue is the manner of debate. While we don't gather the flock for Jesus by yelling at everyone, yet neither can we call everyone brethren who profess they call the Lord Jesus their Savior and his disciples did. Mormons or typical Catholics included, for even by the first century we had "false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:13-14).
When speaking Biblically, which is what this issue is about, then your first sentence cannot stand if the second sentence (which I also expressed) is true.
It remains that God describes God as hating sinners, and in more terms than only "hate," yet loving them them and in more terms than only "love," and these attitudinal or emotive terms need not be and are not mutually contradictory as used in Scripture.
The big danger I see in people pushing the *God hates* scenario is that it will justify that person’s hatred or callous indifference to others who have not yet been redeemed. And sadly, I see a lot of that kind of attitude from self-professed Calvinists. I have not had the experience of finding them overall, as a warm, loving, caring group of people.
On this we agree, but the danger is always of overreaction in the light of a lack of balance.
Indeed, that is true, Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. (Romans 8:7)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.