'Salvation' v. Conversion Present evangelism gears around the concept of being *saved* as an "escape", or as a devise for some sort of apeacement with God , hence the Roman Road, the 5 steps, or the four spiritual laws, etc. However, true salvation is a facet of the whole work of redemption, which biblically comes represented by *conversion* meaning the drastic turning the full demand of the gospel entitles as a total capitulation to God, his terms, demands and blue print. A minimal presentation of some truths of the gospel then, not only leads to easy believism, and false conversions, but to the loss of the lines of demarcation between false and true churches, besides of adding to confusion and deception if reckoning that having pursued some terms of faith, all the rest does not matter as suggested by a caller in this program . Making some sort of profession of faith is modern 'salvation'. Turning from darkness into light is biblical conversion. Evangelism focused on the later would clear the way for much blessing
Myths The founders, at best, were deists, if not unitarian talking the lingo of Christianity, while the colonists were British citizens with taxation status to the Crown financing stationary armies. Nothing alarming, far from tyranny
Pity Pity these 10 reasons had not been properly preached 20, 40 years ago from many pulpits.
It would had possibly spared two generations from going under the grip of hellish secularism.
Disney does not merely lead to confusion or inconsistency, but it is harsh indoctrination, programming a mind set for life and making the power of the Word of God of no avail to those exposed to.
Pertinent question Setting aside any cases of fleshly authoritarian abuse, in this age characterised by secularism, self-will, liberalism and antinomianism in Christian settings, IFB churches are attacked and detracted this way from hellish quarters because of their stand against all that pertains to ungodliness. Though fully committed to the gospel of grace, they have for long been falsely misrepresented as 'legalists', as preaching salvation by works because of their fixed stand for godliness and separation in the Christian walk. In short they are victims of destructive critism from hell itself whose motive is hatred of godliness. Independent fellowships have the right, if so they wish, to stablish or maintain godly distinctives and to abide by them. It is up to the individual to adhere him/herself with a fellowship holding to similar personal affinities or not. It is true that with strict principles in place, the risk of obscuring the work of grace is real and it takes a good balanced teaching to avoid it. However, suspected personal rebellion might be the cause behind the cultic detraction.
Chastening for our good "Let the priests, the ministers of the LORD, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, O LORD, and give not thine heritage to reproach,... - Yea, the LORD will answer..."
Comfort The global trouble comes for the good of the church.
"Let the priests, the ministers of the LORD, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, O LORD, and give not thine heritage to reproach,... - Yea, the LORD will answer..."
No, they belong to the same C S Lewis was a spiritualist. He did not borrowed his knowledge of mythology from his humanistic training. Rather his personal knowledge of the occult comes reflected in his narratives. Any advocating otherwise is trying hard to assimilate culture rather than analysing it correctly. It is a travesty to put Lewis on the same platform as Bunyan or Defoe whose narratives were clean from such content with distinctive teaching, and not entrailed in esoteric or mysterious knowledge. The gospel when portrayed has to be distinctively presented. In justifying Lewis Christians are desperately redeeming culture in vain.