a list of threats

Yes, there's no doubt in my mind that I would disagree with Mother T on a great many issues - just as I'm sure I would disagree with *you* about a great many issues. But the bottom line is this: if you believe in the Lord Jesus as your savior, if you are under God's grace, mistakes in doctrine are not going negate that grace. If you are under God's grace, but make mistakes in doctrine (I know I do!!!), are you lost? No, you are not. Why do different rules apply to Mother T?

 

I'm sorry, but this thread has turned into a "Mother Theresa" thread instead. Anyone who promotes other religions is a false prophet in the least, this has been public knowledge in her case for years. To comprimise the Truth to sympathize with other's religion is sending them on to Hell, else God is a liar and Jesus died in vain.

It would do some good to realize the blood that bought them and not intermix religion with salvation, except "pure religion and undefiled" James 1:27. This is not her case, she defiled the Truth more than a couple of times. So have most of the others originally mentioned in the thread.

In His Holy Service,

Brother Ricky

 

The following is from an interview with a Catholic nun, "Sister" Ann, who worked in Kathman-du, Nepal, with "Mother" Teresa's organization Missionaries of Charity. The interview was conducted 11/23/84 at the Pashupati Temple:

Q: Do you believe if they die believing in Shiva or in Ram [Hindu gods] they will go to heaven?

A: Yes, that is their faith. My own faith will lead me to God, ... So if they have believed in their god very strongly, if they have faith, surely they will be saved.

Q: Today it does not seem that the Catholic Church is trying to convert anymore. I know that John Paul II is saying now that those of other religions are saved. You do not believe they are lost anyway, right?

A: No, they are not lost. They are saved according to their faith, you know. If they believe whatever they believe, that is their salvation.


Three pages of sample prayers are prefaced with, "You could replace 'Jesus' by 'God' if you are not a Christian" (p. 35).


Mother Teresa -- A Simple Path contains inside cover notes declaring it "a unique spiritual guide."
In 184 pages, there was nothing stating that salvation was through Jesus alone. She wrote, "I've always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic" (p. 31). There is no attempt to let others know that Jesus is the only way. There is no hint that "Mother" Teresa or her "sisters" believed the narrow way Jesus preached (cf. Matt. 7:13-14).

"Mother" Teresa provided the classic example of compassionate and charitable deeds divorced from truth. She said that her purpose was to bring her patients closer to the "God" in whom they already believe; so that a Hindu becomes a better Hindu, a Buddhist a better Buddhist, etc.1 (Vatican II says those of all religions are somehow saved through the Church.) She told how to witness for Jesus: In an interview with a nun who worked with "Mother" Teresa , dying Hindus were instructed to pray to their own Hindu gods!2 (reported in Christian News):

"These people are waiting to die. What are you telling them to prepare them for death and eternity? She replied candidly, 'We tell them to pray to their Bhagwan, to their gods.'"

 

And yet no one will directly answer my question.

 

The 'mistakes' Mother Theresa made were of the most serious sort. Jesus Christ clearly stated, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. NNE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME" (Jn. 14:6).

 

Yes, I realize that. If she indeed said those things, she was of course wrong. She may have even been directly responsible for letting others die in their sins, because she thought they were saved via a different religion. *However* do these mistakes negate God's grace *towards her*? If *she* believed in Jesus as *her* savior, and thus was saved by grace, do later mistakes in her doctrine negate God's grace towards her? Basically, when I look at Mother T, I see someone who believed in Christ and who he was, accepted him as her savior, did good works, and had errors in doctrine.

What has me confused is that most Baptists believe in eternal security, yet most of these same Baptists believe people like Mother T have somehow lost their salvation by later making mistakes in understanding certain doctrines. Can anyone explain? How many mistakes on that doctrinal entrance exam to I have to make before they revoke God's grace and bar my entrance to heaven?

 

BrianT, to answer whther grace can be "negated", NO! Grace can neither be negated, limited, or merited, but it surely can be frustrated. Just because some one like M T has named Christ, that does not mena she ever was saved. Anyone who is saved certainly knows who God is and will definitely refuse any other.

M T's "religion" was all about works. All other religions proclaim a "works" salvation. Her "works" do NOT prove or merit grace unto salvation, else she would repent of her dead works and refute other religions in the process.

Saying "I believe in Jesus" does NOT save, else the devils who believe and tremble at the Word of God are saved too, that's not the case.

M T was the epitomy of ecumenicalism at best. Was she saved? I certainly doubt anyone who believes there are other "roads" to salvation, denying Christ, or intermingling other gods with Christ is saved, so is the case of M T.

Anyone who endoreses other religions as a means of gaining salvation due to their sincerety is
anti-christ, so was the case with M T, does that "directly" and "specifically" answer your question?

 

BrianT: You said

Scripture tells us:

If Mother T. did not believe salvation comes only through Christ Jesus, then Mother T., in MY opinion, was not saved.

Diane

 

So what IS the purpose of this thread? I'm very confused unless it's to discuss the above people and how they may or may not have mislead others about salvation and doctrine (which has to be Baptist doctrine since this is a Baptist Board).

Massdak! Good list! I'm questioning Billy Sunday but all I really know about him is what I read in our home schooling books. http://www.geneamondson.com/mission/

Diane

 

O.K. Dr. Bob who do we "beat in their grave " next? We started at the bottom of the list in "beating" , should we now move up the proverbial ladder and "beat" Charles Finney or step up a rung and "beat" (Banty Hen)? With whose club are we "beating" anyone? The club of Truth? Truth has it's own way of "beating" to death false doctrine, I use Truth as my defense, false dogma tends to attack Truth, so that indicates self defense, self defense is legal in any case, so that then makes me a legalist! Anyone who isn't a legalist is illegal.

 

Robert Schuller is still alive! I vote to 'discuss' his misteachings next!

The Gospel According to Schuller
Self- Esteem the New Reformation (Word:1982)

Incorporating the new meanings given to orthodox terminology, Schuller's view of the Gospel becomes evident. He rejects the depravity of man calling it an "error" (p. 162) and "too shallow" (p. 63), insisting that salvation should be man-centered [humanistic] rather than God-centered (p. 64). This is a devious way of saying that God's holiness and His hatred of and judgment upon sin are to be ignored and only His "nonjudgmental love" is to be recognized. Anything contrary to this is rejected as being too negative. Time and again he asserts that "Jesus never called anyone a sinner" (pp. 100,126,157), that He "never puts down another human being" (p. 48). But would the scribes and Pharisees, who Jesus "complimented" with such names as "hypocrites, white sepulchres, serpents, generation of vipers, fools" (Matt. 23) agree? Would Jesus have preached repentance to those who were not sinners (Mk. 1:15)? And did Jesus not acknowledge the woman taken in adultery as one guilty of sin (Jn. 8:11)?

The next liberal lie (and another of the clichés) in Schuller's scheme is the false doctrine of the Fatherhood of God. He reiterates this theme in a variety of ways, even renaming a chapter after the concept. Schuller claims that in order to create the kingdom of God here on earth we must all accentuate the positives, eliminate the negatives, fill up on self-esteem, get everyone else to do the same regardless of creed (meaning regardless of what anyone believes), join together, and all be God's children. As he says, "God is trying … to build a society of human beings who live out the golden rule" (p. 135). This is, of course, based on the presupposition that we are all God's children to begin with, whether in belief or if we simply make people aware of their divine parentage they will automatically begin acting accordingly, what with everybody being full of divine self-esteem and all. This, in a nutshell so to speak, is Schuller's "New Reformation" idea. But Jesus said that there is a different source for our spiritual parentage (Jn. 8:44-"ye are of your father, the devil"), and that salvation is the only way to become His child (Jn. 1:12).

"such are false prophets, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:13); "from such turn away" (2 Tim. 3:5).

 

Maybe he should have been a major league baseball player and neglected his family that way? I wouldn't necessarily take the testimony of a preacher's children as authoritve as the whole, y'know, many a preacher's kid has been rebellious and bitter. I do agree that a man should put his family over his ministry, but by your observation, you'd have to add Charles Stanley to your list.

 

The difference I was trying to point out was Stanley "hung" himself in the article in the "AJC". Sunday was "hung" by his children for the seemingly same "mistake", ( and supposed unbelievers at that). I'd question the validity of Sunday's children, but I have none other reason but Stanley's own tongue to verify his.