On This Day in History

The 95 Theses 31 October 1517 – Martin Luther nailed The 95 Theses to the door of the Schlosskirche (Castle Church) in Wittenberg.

This is the 500th anniversary (1517-2017) of the event that ignited the reformation further against roman Catholicism and the papacy.

The 95 Theses

Concerns that had been growing since his visit to Rome in 1510 led Luther now to make a formal objection to the abuses of indulgences. On All Saint’s Day (1 November), people would be coming from far and wide in order to view the more than 5,000 relics exhibited in the Schlosskirche, which had been built specifically for the purpose of housing this massive collection. So, on 31 October 1517, Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses against indulgences on to the door of the castle church. He also posted a copy to the Archbishop of Mainz.

Martin Luther (1483-1546) These Theses created such a sensation that within 2 weeks, they had been printed and read throughout Germany. Within the month, translations were being printed and sold all over Europe.

The 95 Theses begin with the words: “Since our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ says: ‘Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near’ (Matthew 4:17), He wants the whole life of a believer to be a life of Repentance.”

Luther maintained that no sacrament can take away our responsibility to respond to Christ’s command by an inner repentance evidenced by an outward change, a transformation and renewal of our entire life. Luther emphasised that it is God alone who can forgive sins, and that indulgences are a fraud. It would be far better to give to the poor, than to waste one’s money on indulgences. If the Pope really had power over the souls suffering in Purgatory, why would he not release them out of pure Christian charity? (Source: Martin Luther – Captive to the Word of God –ReformationSA.org)

Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the Schlosskirche door


The 95 Theses in English (Source)

  1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
  2. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
  3. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.
  4. The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
  5. The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.
  6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.
  7. God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all things and makes him submissive to the vicar, the priest.
  8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to the canons themselves, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
  9. Therefore the Holy Spirit through the pope is kind to us insofar as the pope in his decrees always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
  10. Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penalties for purgatory.
  11. Those tares of changing the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory were evidently sown while the bishops slept (Mt 13:25).
  12. In former times canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
  13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties, are already dead as far as the canon laws are concerned, and have a right to be released from them.
  14. Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater the fear.
  15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, to say nothing of other things, to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
  16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and assurance of salvation.
  17. It seems as though for the souls in purgatory fear should necessarily decrease and love increase.
  18. Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or by Scripture, that souls in purgatory are outside the state of merit, that is, unable to grow in love.
  19. Nor does it seem proved that souls in purgatory, at least not all of them, are certain and assured of their own salvation, even if we ourselves may be entirely certain of it.
  20. Therefore the pope, when he uses the words “plenary remission of all penalties,” does not actually mean “all penalties,” but only those imposed by himself.
  21. Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences.
  22. As a matter of fact, the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to canon law, they should have paid in this life.
  23. If remission of all penalties whatsoever could be granted to anyone at all, certainly it would be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to very few.
  24. For this reason most people are necessarily deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty.
  25. That power which the pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own diocese and parish.
  26. The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of intercession for them.
  27. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.
  28. It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.
  29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal, as related in a legend.
  30. No one is sure of the integrity of his own contrition, much less of having received plenary remission.
  31. The man who actually buys indulgences is as rare as he who is really penitent; indeed, he is exceedingly rare.
  32. Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.
  33. Men must especially be on guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to him.
  34. For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of sacramental satisfaction established by man.
  35. They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional privileges preach unchristian doctrine.
  36. Any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without indulgence letters.
  37. Any true Christian, whether living or dead, participates in all the blessings of Christ and the church; and this is granted him by God, even without indulgence letters.
  38. Nevertheless, papal remission and blessing are by no means to be disregarded, for they are, as I have said (Thesis 6), the proclamation of the divine remission.
  39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the bounty of indulgences and the need of true contrition.
  40. A Christian who is truly contrite seeks and loves to pay penalties for his sins; the bounty of indulgences, however, relaxes penalties and causes men to hate them — at least it furnishes occasion for hating them.
  41. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.
  42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.
  43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.
  44. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.
  45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God’s wrath.
  46. Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.
  47. Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.
  48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.
  49. Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them.
  50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence preachers, he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were burned to ashes than built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.
  51. Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should wish to give of his own money, even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money.
  52. It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to offer his soul as security.
  53. They are the enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid altogether the preaching of the Word of God in some churches in order that indulgences may be preached in others.
  54. Injury is done to the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or larger amount of time is devoted to indulgences than to the Word.
  55. It is certainly the pope’s sentiment that if indulgences, which are a very insignificant thing, are celebrated with one bell, one procession, and one ceremony, then the gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
  56. The true treasures of the church, out of which the pope distributes indulgences, are not sufficiently discussed or known among the people of Christ.
  57. That indulgences are not temporal treasures is certainly clear, for many indulgence sellers do not distribute them freely but only gather them.
  58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, for, even without the pope, the latter always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outer man.
  59. St. Lawrence said that the poor of the church were the treasures of the church, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.
  60. Without want of consideration we say that the keys of the church, given by the merits of Christ, are that treasure.
  61. For it is clear that the pope’s power is of itself sufficient for the remission of penalties and cases reserved by himself.
  62. The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.
  63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last (Mt. 20:16).
  64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.
  65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets with which one formerly fished for men of wealth.
  66. The treasures of indulgences are nets with which one now fishes for the wealth of men.
  67. The indulgences which the demagogues acclaim as the greatest graces are actually understood to be such only insofar as they promote gain.
  68. They are nevertheless in truth the most insignificant graces when compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross.
  69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal indulgences with all reverence.
  70. But they are much more bound to strain their eyes and ears lest these men preach their own dreams instead of what the pope has commissioned.
  71. Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed.
  72. But let him who guards against the lust and license of the indulgence preachers be blessed.
  73. Just as the pope justly thunders against those who by any means whatever contrive harm to the sale of indulgences.
  74. Much more does he intend to thunder against those who use indulgences as a pretext to contrive harm to holy love and truth.
  75. To consider papal indulgences so great that they could absolve a man even if he had done the impossible and had violated the mother of God is madness.
  76. We say on the contrary that papal indulgences cannot remove the very least of venial sins as far as guilt is concerned.
  77. To say that even St. Peter if he were now pope, could not grant greater graces is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.
  78. We say on the contrary that even the present pope, or any pope whatsoever, has greater graces at his disposal, that is, the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written. (1 Co 12[:28])
  79. To say that the cross emblazoned with the papal coat of arms, and set up by the indulgence preachers is equal in worth to the cross of Christ is blasphemy.
  80. The bishops, curates, and theologians who permit such talk to be spread among the people will have to answer for this.
  81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult even for learned men to rescue the reverence which is due the pope from slander or from the shrewd questions of the laity.
  82. Such as: “Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church?” The former reason would be most just; the latter is most trivial.
  83. Again, “Why are funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continued and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded for them, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?”
  84. Again, “What is this new piety of God and the pope that for a consideration of money they permit a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God and do not rather, because of the need of that pious and beloved soul, free it for pure love’s sake?”
  85. Again, “Why are the penitential canons, long since abrogated and dead in actual fact and through disuse, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences as though they were still alive and in force?”
  86. Again, “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?”
  87. Again, “What does the pope remit or grant to those who by perfect contrition already have a right to full remission and blessings?”
  88. Again, “What greater blessing could come to the church than if the pope were to bestow these remissions and blessings on every believer a hundred times a day, as he now does but once?”
  89. “Since the pope seeks the salvation of souls rather than money by his indulgences, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons previously granted when they have equal efficacy?”
  90. To repress these very sharp arguments of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies and to make Christians unhappy.
  91. If, therefore, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and intention of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved. Indeed, they would not exist.
  92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace! (Jer. 6:14)
  93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross, cross,” and there is no cross!
  94. Christians should be exhorted to be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, death and hell.
  95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many tribulations rather than through the false security of peace (Acts 14:22).Soli Deo Gloria
Advertisements

2017 Champions ~ Are You Ready?

34  And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
35  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.
36  For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
37  Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
38  Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
~ Mark 8:34-38

Pirates Football Club (Est. 1897)Dear players, parents and coaches

Whilst the 2017 M.D.F.A. football league season has drawn to a close, the question that should be asked is – What has it profited us? If we have only obtained gold medals and a trophy, but have not learned anything concerning the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ then we have failed dismally. If the Gospel literature and discussions have not challenged unbelieving players, parents and coaches to seek Truth, and who remain unrepentant outside the Kingdom of GOD and therefore they remain enemies of GOD through their wicked works, then any accolades, medals, championships we have won are a waste of time and effort. Being religious and pious, but not being born-again by the Spirit of the Living GOD leaves each individual utterly bankrupt! Our true riches can only be found in the Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ! Everything else is dross!

In Holy Scripture, our journey through life on earth is likened to a marathon race. We are reminded that our running of the race is to be a spiritual race for an incorruptible crown, not a worldly race for a crown that perishes! The very medals that we win will wax old and perish, but the true reward for a born-again child of GOD will be to pursue a crown that will last for eternity, as we read, for it is written,

24  Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
25  And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.
26  I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:
27  But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. ~ I Corinthians 9:24-27

Friends, in the early part of the football season, on 25th May 2017 to be precise, an encouraging challenge was presented in the various Pirates WhatsApp groups, which led to one conversation, that is shared here to put this blog post in perspective, that went as follows – please read left thenWhatsApp02 right:

WhatsApp01 Friends, the God-Man Jesus Christ stated that, “6 I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.” (John 14:6,7). GOD is a Spirit (John 4:24), so whilst Jesus was speaking to His disciples and stated that they “know him, and have seen him” in reference to GOD the Father, Christ Jesus was in fact stating that He is GOD manifest in flesh (see John 1:1,2,14) and in I Timothy 3:16 we read, for it is written, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” Therefore, man-made religions do not worship the True GOD and those religions will condemn souls to hell. If you are not a Christ follower (a born-again Christian)(see John 3:3-7) it matters what you believe for your beliefs will condemn your soul into eternal damnation! And there is no Scriptural evidence for a man-made papal heresy called purgatory! For we read, for it is written,

27  And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: ~ Hebrews 9:27

Friends, during the course of the football season at various times opportunities presented themselves where Gospel literature was presented to various persons and conversations were had. My love for my Roman Catholic friends compelled me to warn some of the dangers of being in membership with the papal Roman Catholic political-religious institution that has changed the Word of GOD with heretical man-made teachings, that one will never find in GOD’s Holy Scriptures. Love compels one to warn of pending danger, and therefore these Gospel tracts were offered in love to my fellow man:

>> My Friends Are Dying And, Though They Be Alive, They Are Dead Men Walking ~ A Message of Hope ~

>> GAME OVER ~ A Real Tragedy ~

>> The Gospel for Roman Catholics

>> Are Roman Catholics Christian?

>> Man of the Match

>> Your Life ~ God’s Solution to Your Religion

>> Creation vs. Evolution ~ Do Not Let Darwin Make a Monkey Out of You

>> Reincarnation . . . Or Resurrection? ~ A Message to Hindus ~ 

2017 League Champions Pirates (League) and Savages (K.O. Cup) awaiting the medal presentations  The Pirates BoysPirates FC lining up to congratulate our opponents Savages FC Pirates FC lining up to congratulate our opponents Savages FCPirates FC lining up to congratulate our opponents Savages FC Pirates FC lining up to congratulate our opponents Savages FCPirates FC lining up to congratulate our opponents Savages FC Pirates FC lining up to congratulate our opponents Savages FCPirates FC lining up to congratulate our opponents Savages FC   Pirates FC lining up to congratulate our opponents Savages FCPirates FC lining up to congratulate our opponents Savages FC Pirates FC lining up to congratulate our opponents Savages FCPirates FC lining up to congratulate our opponents Savages FC  Curt leading the team onto The Deck

WhatsApp comment by George CarelseFriends, in response to the afore-pictured sporting gestures, the screenshot to the left from the Pirates FC Chairman George Carelse, who is also the Chairman of the M.D.F.A. (Maritzburg District Football Association), compliments  our Sportsmanship and Fair Play “On and Off the field” which is commendable as we promote, as can be testified by a video that can be viewed on Facebook at this Link. However, it should be remembered that every ‘good work’ that we undertake here on earth will one day be tested by fire to see if it was done for the right reasons, to bring glory to GOD or whether it was an act to be seen of men, as we read, for it is written,

11  For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12  Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13  Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
14  If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15  If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. ~ I Corinthians 3:11-15

So was our work built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ? Or did we do ‘good works’ in our own self-righteous strength? As a result, was it worth our while this past season to obtain perishable medals? or were we truly running to obtain an incorruptible crown? For we are warned, as it is written,

5  Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? ~ II Corinthians 13:5

Curt Rogers Malachi MompleThando Hlophe  Kory DonnellyKaydon Adonis Cee-Jay MulderKaleb Chetty Trent van WykLungelo Gwabuzela   Azande ZondiBrelyn Johnson Dvon HarveyKofi Atta Lorenzo DolphinHead Coach Miles Rogers presenting Asst. Coach Gary Crous  Asst. Coach Gary Crous presenting Head Coach Miles Rogers  M.D.F.A. Chairman and Pirates F.C. Chairman George Carelse presenting the Pirates Under 10 Coaches with the League Champions Trophy

The M.D.F.A. and Pirates F.C. Chairman George Carelse with the Pirates F.C. Under 10 Coaches Gary Crous (Asst.) and Miles Rogers (Head) after receiving the League Champions Trophy Campiones, Campiones, Ole, Ole, Ole

Dear friends, whilst we were successful in our football endeavours, was there true spiritual growth according to the Word of GOD? Being religious does not cut it. Naming the name of ‘Jesus’ does not cut it either, for we read, for it is written,

13  Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15  Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16  Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24  Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25  And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26  And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27  And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

28  And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
29  For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. ~ Matthew 7:13-29 (my emphasis added in bold)

In closing, as we entered this week there was much talk about the date 23rd September 2017 by the “date setting prophets”, the “doomsday sayers” and the internet is abuzz with videos and writings about the speculative predictions of Planet-X (Nibiru) slamming into earth or knocking it off its axis, the pre-tribulation rapture, the Revelation 12 sign, and the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, and even talk of the end of the world. Is this all possible now? It certainly is. Will it come to pass now? Only GOD knows the end from the beginning, for it is written, “9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:” (Isaiah 46,9,10).

Friends, what I do know and share from GOD’s Word as we can read, for it is written,

31  Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
32  But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
33  Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.

34  For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
35  Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
36  Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
37  And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.
~ Mark 13:31-37

And in the Gospel of Luke it points to the very times we are living in – these evil days are just as the “days of Noe” and the “days of Lot” – as we read, for it is written,

26  And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27  They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28  Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29  But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 
30  Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
~ Luke 17:26-30

Friends, let us not find ourselves as enemies of GOD, as we read, “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” (James 4:4). And in the commentary words of Matthew Henry in respect of this particular verse: “Here is a decided warning to avoid all criminal friendships with this world. Worldly-mindedness is enmity to God. An enemy may be reconciled, but “enmity” never can be reconciled. A man may have a large portion in things of this life, and yet be kept in the love of God; but he who sets his heart upon the world, who will conform to it rather than lose its friendship, is an enemy to God.

Dear friends, unless you are born-again and your name is written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, you cannot enter and see the Kingdom of GOD! Today is the day of salvation. Call upon GOD to save you in Jesus’ Name – Repent and believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is your only hope! Your calling should be “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 20:21). Nothing and nobody else can save your soul. So, Are You Ready?

36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? ~ Mark 8:36,37

Soli Deo Gloria

Promotion of One Religion in Schools Not Allowed Rebuttal

THIS blog post will consist of two newspaper articles, a rebuttal of judge Willem van der Linde’s South Gauteng High Court ruling and a conclusion by writer from the only True standard being the Holy Word of GOD. The School Governing Bodies (SGBs) will not be legally bound by this decision until such time as this judgment has been appealed to and until such time the appeals are concluded and therefore the SGBs can continue as before with their chosen religious ethos.

ChristianView Network condemns this mornings judgment of Wednesday 28 June 2017, by the South Gauteng High Court that school governing bodies may not adopt a particular single faith religious ethos is legally flawed for multiple reasons and hopefully will be overturned on appeal. The ruling undermines the authority of parents through the school governing body. It is unfair to people of faith who have to contribute taxes towards education, but cannot then benefit by having those taxes used towards single faith ethos. The national consultation by Education Minister Bengu in 1999 found that almost all parents and religious groups wanted single faith ethos in schools. . . .

The matter will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal and then to the Constitutional Court and thus School governing bodies will not be legally bound by this decision until such time as such appeals are concluded. In the interim, they will be able to continue as before. – Philip Rosenthal of ChristianView Network (Source)

_______________________________________________

The first newspaper article

Single religion schools unlawful

News / 29 June 2017, 07:57am / Kamcilla Pillay and Zimasa Matiwane (Source)

Judge's gavel

KwaZulu-Natal religious bodies have welcomed the South Gauteng High Court ruling against the promotion of one denomination over another at public schools.

Judge Willem van der Linde said in his ruling on Monday: “Neither a school governing body nor a public school may lawfully hold out that it subscribes to only a single particular religion to the exclusion of others.”

In May, the Organisation for Religious Education and Democracy brought an application to the high court asking it to rule against having one dominant religion observed at public schools.

The organisation, reported the African News Agency, brought the application against six schools: Laerskool Randhart, Laerskool Baanbreker, Laerskool Garsfontein, Hoërskool Linden, Hoërskool Oudtshoorn and Oudtshoorn Gimnasium, arguing that religious practices at these schools resulted in the suppression of scientific teachings of evolution, and a religious ethos that was a form of coercion and an abuse of pupils’ rights.

Van der Linde said public spaces were not “rarefied spaces” but public ones which needed to help to achieve “universal and non-discriminatory access to education”.

The judge also said the constitution demanded that provision for religious policies and observances needed to be conducted on a “free and voluntary, and equitable” basis.

“In this country, our diversity is celebrated, not tolerated.”

Van der Linde questioned if it would be acceptable if a public school, through rules laid down by the school governing body, held out that it was “exclusively a Jewish, or a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or an atheist, school”.

“Accepting a notional feeder community of 100% single religion parents, could it ever pass muster of the need for a national democratic respect for our country’s diverse cultural and religious traditions for that school to brand itself as adhering to that particular single faith to the exclusion of others?”

The national department of education said the ruling was consistent with its own policy, informed by the South African Schools Act and the constitution, that no one religion should be promoted above another.

“The aim is not to ban religious practices in schools but about protecting children and emphasising that schools should engage in religion education rather than religious instruction and not promote one religion over another,” said a spokesperson for the department.

Chairperson of the National Association of School Governing Bodies, Motsamai Lekata, said the organisation welcomed the “progressive” judgment.

He said today’s pupils would interact with a far “more pluralistic society” and that schools were the one place where different religions met.

“South Africa is one nation but its people believe in many gods. This, if implemented correctly, will teach our pupils tolerance, diversity, equality and justice,” Lekata said.

South African Muslim Network chairperson Dr Faisal Suliman said fostering a culture of inclusion should be a “natural, human inclination”.

“We are trying to build social cohesion. How do we do that? We try to understand each other: it starts here, at our schools. This will go a long way in eradicating extremism too.”

He praised the judgment for its values of mutual tolerance and acceptance.

Ashwin Trikamjee, president of the Hindu Maha Sabha, said that – especially 23 years after the advent of democracy – this kind of case should not be coming before the courts.

“We very often hear complaints from disgruntled parents about this exclusion. It should not be happening in this day and age.”

It was not the responsibility of schools to teach children about their faith, said chairperson for the Diakonia Council of Churches, the Reverend Ian Booth.

“This is for places of worship to do. We would support this judgment as it is in keeping with our constitution.”

The ChristianView Network did not approve of the ruling and said it confused the “constitutional affirmation of unity in diversity with the positive requirement of celebrating diversity”.

“In other words, tolerance of other religions does not imply a need to ‘celebrate’ multi-faith observances, with which most people of faith have a strong objection.”

The Mercury

__________________________________________________________

the second newspaper article

Judge Willem van der Linde hands down the ruling at the High Court in Johannesburg. (Wikus De Wet-Netwerk24)‘Schools should not adopt one religion to the exclusion of others’ – judge

2017-06-28 10:35 – News24 (Source)

Johannesburg – The High Court in Johannesburg has handed down a ruling on religion in public schools, saying that schools can’t promote one religion.

The case was brought by the Organisation for Religious Education and Democracy (OGOD) against six schools.

"Religious observances may be conducted at state or state-aided institutions, provided that:
(a) Those observances follow rules made by the appropriate public authorities;
(b) They are conducted on an equitable basis; and
(c) Attendance at them is free and voluntary," Judge Willem van der Linde said while handing down the judgment, quoting from Section 15 of the Constitution which deals with freedom of religion, belief and opinion.

"…we have however also found at the level of principle that neither a school governing body nor a public school may lawfully hold out that it subscribes to only a single particular religion to the exclusion of others," said Van der Linde.

OGOD wanted the court to declare unconstitutional the religion policy of six schools: Randhart Primary School in Alberton, Baanbreker Primary School in Boksburg, Garsfontein Primary School in Pretoria, Linden High School in Johannesburg, Oudtshoorn High School and Langenhoven Gymnasium in Oudtshoorn, Netwerk24 previously reported.

The six schools, the ministers of basic education and justice, and the National Society for School Governing Bodies were respondents.

The court found that it was against the Education Act to "promote one faith or one religion primarily at the expense of others or allow school staff to do it", Netwerk24 reported.

"In the circumstances, we issue the following order:
(a). It is declared that it offends Section 7 of the Schools Act, 84 of 1996 for a public school –
(i). To promote or allow its staff to promote that it as a public school adheres to only one, or predominantly only one, religion to the exclusion of others; and
(ii). To hold out that it promotes the interests of any one religion in favour of others."

The remainder of the relief claimed was refused and there was no order as to costs.

Advocate Hendrik van Nieuwenhuizen, for OGOD, said it is in the interests of South African democracy that public schools are not allowed to promote a particular religion, but that the choice of religion lies with pupils.

Advocate Adrian d’Oliveira, the school’s legal representative, said every school community was unique and should therefore be allowed to choose a religious policy that serves the community. They wanted the court to recognise the "governing authority" of the school governing bodies.

Advocate Matthew Chaskalson, for the minister of basic education, said the national policy on religion and education prohibited public schools from offering religious education in a single faith or in favour of a particular religious ethos.

___________________________________________________________

rebuttal by philip rosenthal

Thought Leaders June 29, 2017 (Source)

Religion in public schools judgment is ‘flawed’ – Philip Rosenthal

JOHANNESBURG — Religious freedom is one of the cornerstones of South Africa’s Constitutional democracy. The state is secular and people have the right to choose their beliefs. But in a multi-faceted society as complex as South Africa, huge differences in opinion are set to emerge. Subsequently, a landmark judgment delivered this week regarding religion in public schools is already causing heated debate. The South Gauteng High Court ruled this week that public schools should not favour any one religion over others. The landmark ruling came about amid the Organisation for Religious Education and Democracy having brought the case against six schools with a Christian ethos. News organisation Enca reported that “the organisation argued that the schools’ decision to stop the scientific teaching of the theory of evolution is an abuse of pupils’ rights”. The organisation reportedly further “opposed the teaching of creationism and what it described as coercing pupils to follow Christianity and hymn singing”. Of course, creationism should not get in the way of scientific teaching, especially in a South Africa that sorely needs a skilled populace. But some experts are arguing that schools should at least still have the right to choose their religious ethos. In this article, Philip Rosenthal puts once such viewpoint forward. – Gareth van Zyl

By Philip Rosenthal*

Why Judge VD Linde was wrong on religion in schools judgment

The judgment of Wednesday 28 June 2017, given by Willem van der Linde in the South Gauteng High Court that school governing bodies may not promote themselves as having a particular single faith religious ethos is flawed for multiple reasons and hopefully will be overturned on appeal.

Philip RosenthalThe judge was however correct firstly in dismissing the detailed list of 71 demands of the atheistic lobby group O.G.O.D. based on the principle of subsidiarity, where the challenge must first appeal to the lowest level of law in its hierarchy (i.e. first School Governing Body (SGB) policy, second provincial legislation, third national legislation and lastly the constitution).

Secondly he was correct in dismissing challenge based on the National Religion Policy, which is not enforceable the by the court. The judge made the wrong assumptions that public schools are ‘organs of state’, rather than a parent-teacher-state partnership; confused the constitutional affirmation of ‘unity in diversity’ with a requirement of ‘celebrating diversity’.

He wrongly assumed that the SGB rules must accommodate both past and possible future demographics and accommodate any possible religion equally in direct contradiction to the interpretation of the same clause by the Constitutional Court in 1996.

Despite having found the applicant’s case procedurally flawed, the court invoked an overly broad and not adequately substantiated interpretation of their discretionary powers to issue an order in their favour, that would, if accepted, leave every person on every right vulnerable to judicial activist social engineering policy making.

The matter will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal and then to the Constitutional Court and thus School governing bodies will not be legally bound by this decision until such time as such appeals are concluded. In the interim, they will be able to continue as before.

Education must be aligned with human rights, everyone has a right to choose their own religion. Schools must respect that #SchoolsReligion

— IG : Khangwi_Ino (@Khangwi_ino) June 28, 2017

Why the decision had the wrong reasoning

The judge gave the following key reasons. We explain why each is flawed:

The judge stated his assumptions before his reasons:

Judges assumption #1: “Public schools are organs of state” We argue that public schools should not be viewed as “organs of state”, but rather as independent institutions which are extensions of the family where teachers operate ‘in loco parentis’, under the authority of parents represented by the School Governing Body (SGB) in partnership with the state. The state takes parents tax money and redistributes it to public schools and regulates certain issues such as educational standards. Public schools should thus be viewed as ‘state-aided institutions’ rather than ‘state institutions’. The implications of this assumption influences whether the centre of authority should be parents or the state.

Judges assumption #2: The judge quoted the preamble of the Constitution as ‘united in our diversity‘, but then interpreted from this ‘the need to celebrate our diversity’. Nevertheless, there is a big difference in the context of sharply differing views between ‘united’ and ‘celebration’ in the context of religion and belief. ‘United’ means that we tolerate, accommodate and respect differences and find ways to work together. It does not mean that we must ‘celebrate’ another’s religion or belief. For example, a Christian may respect a Muslim’s right to “celebrate” Eid, but does not wish to “celebrate” the festival by participating. Likewise a Muslim may respect a Christian’s right to celebrate Easter but not wish to participate. “Celebration” is part of religious observance. “Unity” and “equity” requires “reasonable accommodation”, but not joint “celebration”. ‘Tolerance’ and ‘respect’ are passive, while ‘celebration’ is active. The judge did not see this subtle but key logical difference.

Based on these assumptions, the judges gave the following reasons:

1) Communities evolve, were influenced by past racial demographic policies and must be encouraged to evolve. Answer: As a community changes, they have the opportunity to change the School Governing Body policies on religion and this is happening all the time. Often different schools in the same area adopt different policies, or a particular school may stream religious observances. Minorities have the opportunity to opt-out, to stream parallel observances for their religion or choose the school in the area with the most favourable policy to them. The ruling prohibiting single faith ethos is not needed to facilitate such flexible change and it is not the responsibility of the court to force a mixed uniform religious policy.

2) (a). A member of a minority religion may due to economic circumstance have no choice of alternatives. Answer: There are non-public school alternatives of home schooling, private schooling and the rising trend of the growth of ‘cottage schools’ i.e. very small private schools held in a home or community building, often making use of distance education resources – which are affordable and also occur in economically disadvantaged areas. Minorities do have the right to “reasonable accommodation” implied by the “equitable” in Section 15(2)(b) of the Constitution, which would allow them to opt-out or have their own streamed observances within a public school if they wish.

Court says it’s concerned by single faith branding in schools, and endorsing one religion to the exclusion of others #ReligionInSchools

— Michelle Craig (@MichelleL_Craig) June 28, 2017

2) (b). Being in a religious minority in a school of a particular faith, may inculcate a sense of ‘inferior differentness’. Answer: Firstly, the school has a responsibility to encourage a culture of tolerance of individuals who are different for various reasons, not only religious. Secondly, every individual is likely during their school career to feel ‘different’ for reasons that may or may not relate to religion. Even within the majority religion, there will be subdivisions of belief or practice which are ‘different’. Thirdly, forcing multi-faith observances onto a school can then may those of the majority faith who wish to opt-out of such observances also feel ‘inferior differentness’. The problem is not entirely avoidable as a possibility under any system except ‘homeschooling’ and is not solved by the proposed ruling against particular ethos.

3) Judge vd Linde comes to his conclusion” “accepting as one must, that the SGB rules must provide equitably for all faiths (given present and evolving future demographics), would the adoption of a single faith brand that excludes others not misrepresent the legally required position? That learners of all faiths are (should be) welcome? We think it would.”

Answer: Judge van der Linde builds on the flawed assumption that the SGB rules must accommodate evolving demographics already answered. Nevertheless, at this critical point of conclusion he paraphrases the Constitution incorrectly and misinterprets it, contradicting a previous ruling of the higher Constitutional Court. Clause 15(2) of the Constitution says “Religious observances may be conducted at state or state-aided institutions, provided that a. those observances follow rules made by the appropriate public authorities; b. they are conducted on an equitable basis…”

In the class room

In the judgment, S v Lawrence , S v Negal ; S v Solberg,1996, a case that took place during the interim constitution and in the year the final constitution became law, then Chief justice Chaskalson interpreted the same clause “It is in this context that it requires the regulation of school prayers to be carried out on an equitable basis. I doubt whether this means that a school must make provision for prayers for as many denominations as there may be within the pupil body; rather it seems to me to require education authorities to allow schools to offer the prayers that may be most appropriate for a particular school, to have that decision taken in an equitable manner applicable to all schools, and to oblige them to do so in a way which does not give rise to indirect coercion of the “non-believers”.

In other words, Chief Justice Chaskalson differed from Judge vd Linde’s interpretation of this clause in that ‘equitable’ does not mean that every individual school governing bodies religion policy rules must equally accommodate every religion equally, but that the national framework of laws regulating school religion must allow the different policies of each SGB to be made on an ‘equitable basis’. In other words the national system must allow one school to decide to have a Christian ethos and another to have a Muslim ethos or another to have a Secular or New Age (multi-faith) ethos.

For all the above reasons, Van der Linde’s ruling was wrong and hopefully will be overturned on appeal.

Did the court really have the power to issue this order?

Extraordinarily, the Gauteng High Court did not declare any legislation or rule of the School Governing bodies invalid or issue any of the 71 requested interdicts against any specific party in the dispute. They explained they could not do so because of the procedurally misdirected way in which the case had been framed by the atheistic lobby group O.G.O.D with respect to subsidiarity (explained earlier). The vague application could be compared with aiming a sawn off shotgun in the general direction of the education system and hoping that somehow, something will hit some target. Normally, when the applicant’s case is procedurally flawed, it is simply dismissed – and they must try again following correct procedure and doing their legal homework properly.

Gauteng High Court

But in this case, the Court came to the rescue of the applicant’s procedurally disqualified case and invoked what it claimed were general discretionary powers of the Court that it found in Section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution and Section 21(1)(c) of the Superior Courts Act. Now there are several problems with invoking these extraordinary discretionary powers in this case. The power granted in terms of section 172(1)(b) says ‘When deciding a constitutional matter within its power, a court may make any order that is just and equitable, including i. an order limiting the retrospective effect of the declaration of invalidity and ii. an order suspending the declaration of invalidity for any period and on any conditions, to allow the competent authority to correct the defect. “ But in this case, firstly the declaration of made by the Gauteng High Court was on inconsistency with section 7 of the Schools Act – not the Constitution. And the possible alleged infringement which they claim to find was in terms of Gauteng Provincial legislation, not the Constitution or the Schools Act. So their declaration is already acting outside the scope of this authority and unlinked to their logical reasoning. Further, since only four of the six schools were in Gauteng, even if accepted, such reasoning would then not apply to the two schools in the Western Cape or the tens of thousands of schools elsewhere.

Secondly, the context of this exceptional discretionary power of the court is in context in the two examples that follow is meant to allow the court to mitigate or narrow the effect of their order to limit social disruption – not to expand their powers to declare anything they wish. So, for example, if they declare a law invalid, it allows them to give time to the government to put alternative legislation in place. If this clause is interpreted broadly to allow the court to issue any declaration they wish at their sole discretion, without the need to justify it, then they have created a loophole in the constitution, and now incrementally stretching that loophole, which means we are no longer living in a limited Constitutional democracy, but that activist judges are our new kings.

#SchoolsReligion and a 30% pass mark is going to produce some interesting dogma. e.g. Moses and the Three Commandments.

— Tom Eaton (@TomEatonSA) June 28, 2017

Thirdly, any discretionary power exercised by anyone must be very carefully justified in that instance to avoid it being abused and causing social harm. For example, in an emergency a traffic officer can close a road, but he cannot abuse such emergency power to close any road he wishes if there is an alternative less harmful remedy available. In this instance, the court has issued an unusually thin 35 page judgment, with hardly any motivation for why this extraordinary discretionary power is invoked except that certain other courts have invoked it before. The merit of these other cases is debatable, but, in these precedent cases cited, very detailed motivation was given which this court did not.

To put the matter in context, the precedent cases cited, had judgements double to four times the length over issues of comparatively trivial social impact. Of this 35 page judgment, about half of it is verbatim quotation from other cases or laws, leaving only about 17 pages of original reasoning, most of this explaining why they were not granting the 71 interdicts demanded by the atheist lobby group. Only two paragraphs refer to why this extraordinary discretionary power is invoked and the reasons in that are not much more than that it has been done before.

The reasoning for the substantive declaration is limited to a few paragraphs. They do not even refer to or weigh up the thousands of pages of expert witness and legal research placed before the court, by nine respondents and five friends of the court much of which would contradict their findings. One has to question whether in the space of only six weeks to issue this decision (which surprised all parties), they actually applied their minds to all this evidence – and that itself may be grounds to overturn it.

Further, they did not find any evidence of harm from the practice of single faith ethos, but only that “…but we think it could” make others ‘feel inferior’. But just about anything ‘could’ happen. How would you like a court to rule against you, without finding you had done anything wrong, but only that you ‘could’ potentially harm someone’s feelings?

And even if such harm was proved, the court is required in terms of the limitations clause 36(1)(e) in the Constitution to consider alternative “less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.”, which they did not. For example, a school promoting tolerance and reasonable accommodation of minorities, as most do. So without any finding of evidence of actual harm or infringement of rights, and without considering less restrictive means, the judges decide to abuse their powers, and engage in an act of social engineering – and such judicial abuse of power threatens everyone’s rights. The case becomes then not just about school religion, but about whether the courts have discretionary social engineering policy powers?

Unresolved interpretation and future disputes

Even if Van der Linde’s ruling was upheld by the higher courts, it would leave open major unresolved questions on the interpretation of what it’s limitation on ‘single faith’ religious ethos and observances are – opening the door for many more legal disputes that schools do not want. In its current wording the declaration only limits the school from branding or marketing itself as a particular faith ethos. The court did not rule on what a school could actually do internally in practice. This leaves schools vulnerable to endless litigation and legal intimidation from such lobby groups.

For example, South African schools have historically accommodated religious differences via ‘streaming’, rather than ‘multi-faith religious observances’ to which many people of faith have a strong religious conscientious objection. ‘Streaming’ allows a significant group from a minority religious group to hold alternative religious education or observances at the same time as the majority are having theirs. If this matter is not clarified, it will inevitably result in another court case. Reasonable accommodation via streaming is a much more acceptable alternative than requiring public schools to secularise or have ‘multi-faith’ religious observances.

Nevertheless, streaming is only practical for ‘observances’ and ‘religious education’ and does not resolve the full spectrum of educational ethos which implicitly affects every subject and activity in education. Here neutrality is impossible and thus the South Gauteng High Court ruling tends to favour secularisation and multi-faith ethos, and discriminate against single-faith ethos.

The current legal framework is working well, with no need to change it.

What should schools do?

The ruling will firstly almost certainly be appealed and until that is exhausted (which may take another year or two), it is not legally binding. Secondly, even if upheld its wording limits only promotion of a school as single faith ethos and not its internal practice. Schools should not thus make hasty changes in response to this decision. The ruling does however need to be challenged, both for the sake of governing body rights and to restrict judicial abuse of power in general.

Philip Rosenthal is the director of the public advocacy group, ChristianView Network.

Gareth van ZylGareth van Zyl June 29, 2017| atheistic lobby, BNT5, ChristianView Network, diversity, education, Organisation for Religious Education and Democracy, Philip Rosenthal, public schools, Religion, South Africa, South Gauteng High Court, Supreme Court

___________________________________________________________________

conclusion

In conclusion, above are two newspaper reports surrounding a ruling handed down in the South Gauteng High Court pertaining to an application brought against six public schools in South Africa that have a Christian ethos and teach Christianity. This was followed by a rebuttal against the ruling by Philip Rosenthal and now we will conclude with the Word of GOD.

The real issue at hand is not about multi-religions, but the underlying issue is that the atheistic organization ‘ogod’ has an axe to grind with Christianity and against the Lord Jesus Christ. They do not want the Truth to be told in public schools, but want everyone to conform to the devilish teachings of Darwinian evolution and thereby place the onus upon the children to make misguided decisions of which religion to follow, if any. This is ogod’s attempt at promoting their atheistic-worldview of ecumenism which is Satan’s deception to lead those falling for his lie straight into Hell and the eternal lake that burns with fire and brimstone! Their religious equation looks like this:

atheistic-worldview [no GOD] + ecumenism [all gods] = No True GOD = Eternal Damnation!

The theory of evolution that is being taught in schools as ‘scientific’ is not observable in its ‘scientific macro evolution’ form – evolution from one form into another form for the missing links from one kind into another kind remain missing due to them having never existed and is therefore taught from artistic fanciful imaginations and impressions depicting what they think the science should look like. In essence it is a fairy-tale for grownups, if ever fairy-tales existed! It therefore remains exactly as it is described: ‘a theory.’ A theory is not fact as we can see from the following descriptions:

  • Factnoun. Something that is certainly true.
  • Theorynoun. (plural theories) 1. An idea or set of ideas put forward to explain something. 2. Ideas (contrasted with practice), different theories about how to bring up children. 3. The principles of a subject, music theory.
  • © The South African Oxford School Dictionary, compiled by Joyce M. Hawkins, Oxford University Press 1996

The theory (set of ideas) of evolution is a religion. It is the teachings and worship of the creation more than the Creator, for it is written,

18  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19  Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 
20  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 
21  Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 
22  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 
23  And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 
24  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 
25  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. ~ Romans 1:18-25

The atheist wants everyone’s attention taken off of their Creator and placed on creation and to serve it. This is foolishness. If in the atheist’s interpretation that there is no GOD and everything evolved, then it does not take rocket science to understand that the various life forms have different flesh so how could all kinds (everything) evolve into different kinds from a single organism? The Word of GOD clearly explains the atheist’s quandary, for it is written,

38  But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
39  All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. ~ I Corinthians 15:38,39ff

Now to turn to judge Willem van der Linde who handed down the ruling in favour of the atheists, he has a lot to answer to GOD come the Day of Judgment when he will appear before his Creator Who is the True Judge of the Universe and have to give an accounting to the sovereign Ancient of Days. Willem van der Linde must repent of his wicked deed and rescind this ruling and confess his wickedness to his Creator GOD YEHOVAH and receive GOD’s Son Jesus Christ as his redeemer! This is Willem van der Linde’s only hope of escaping GOD’s damnation of his soul in Hell. He has sided with the Satanic agenda of the atheist lobby group ‘ogod.’ His ruling promotes the ecumenical religions of the deceived atheists, Roman Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, et al, that they have man’s law on their side to reject GOD’s Holy Word and HIS Laws. The way of everlasting life which is to be disciplined as a follower of GOD’s Son the Lord Jesus Christ, can ONLY be received through Jesus Christ the saviour of the world! For it is written,

1  These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 
2  As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 
3  And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
~ John 17:1-3ff

GOD tells us that HE will not give HIS glory to any other and that before HIM there were no god formed, for it is written,

8  Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. 
9  They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed. 
10  Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing? ~ Isaiah 44:8-10

The South Gauteng High Court ruling is encouraging all manner of gods to be encouraged in the education system when pupils are to be taught that which is true! As a result of this ruling it has put GOD on trial, HIS Word on trial and HIS Son Jesus Christ on trial. The schools who were brought before the court were Christian ethos schools – Christ following schools! GOD commands that, for it is written,

3  Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 
4  Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 
5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 
6  And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. ~ Exodus 20:3-6

The school system is already forcing children to learn about all religions in a subject known as life skills! Already the indoctrination of young minds is in the education system and parents have the right to determine what their children are exposed to and what they learn. Children are not the property of the state. Parents have the GOD given responsibility to raise them as GOD fearing, GOD honouring and GOD worshipping children, in the Name of Jesus Christ – “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The Lord Jesus Christ exclusively stated that He is the way, the truth and the life, for it is written,

6  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 
7  If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
~ John 14:6,7

With these words the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is GOD manifest in flesh (John 1:1,2,14), stated that He is the ONLY way, and the ONLY truth, and the ONLY life. He never said He is some way. The way is exclusive! For Jesus Christ said in Matthew 7, “13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” He never said He is some truth. The truth is exclusive! Truth is not subjective, one truth for one person and another truth for another person based on what they believe. Truth is not subjective but objective! To have truth is to have it 100%. If there is but 1% of untruth mixed in with what is perceived to be true, that 1% or smaller measure renders the other 99% untrue, for truth cannot be tainted with untruth for it will render the whole untrue! Jesus Christ said He is truth and in John 8 He said, “31 If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” And in verse 36, “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” And He never said He is some life. The life is exclusive! For it is written in John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

The truth of the matter is that the god of this world Satan that wicked crooked devil is leading all deceived religious persons straight to Hell and one day they will find out that this place truly exists, then it will be too late! Today, while it is still today, throw yourself upon the mercy of GOD and have your “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21). This is your ONLY hope!

Soli Deo Gloria

The Gospel for Roman Catholics

A Gospel tract . . . the original PDF can be viewed Here.

_______________________________________________

The Gospel

for

Roman Catholics

~ With Compliments ~

clip_image002

Gary Stephen Crous

Cell: +27 (0) 72 221 1233

E-mail: luke9.23evangelism@gmail.com

Website: www.luke923evangelism.wordpress.com

The Gospel for Roman Catholics

The Bible, the infallible Word of God, declares in 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

Notice that He is called “the man Christ Jesus”. Yes, Jesus Christ was a Man! But He was also God: God manifest in the flesh. In the first chapter of John, we are told that Jesus Christ, “the Word”, is God Himself (v.1). He is the Second Person of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

All men are sinful by nature, and no man can ever be saved from his sins by his own works; his own efforts. The salvation of sinners is the work of God alone. And for this purpose God the Son, Jesus Christ, left heaven, taking upon Himself human nature (without laying aside His divine nature), being born miraculously of a young virgin (Matthew 1:18-25).

He grew up as all men do, with one difference: He lived a sinless life. This was essential because, in order to suffer the penalty for sin in the place of sinners, He had to be without sin Himself – a perfect Man. The totally innocent had to die for the totally guilty, for the punishment for sin is death (Romans 6:23).

When He died on the cross, He paid the penalty for sin, and shed His blood to wash away sins (Hebrews 9:22-28). And then He rose from the dead, destroying the power of death (Matthew 28:5-7; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57).

Jesus Christ is thus the way to eternal life. He is the only way, there is no other, for the Bible says that there is only one Mediator between God and men, and that is Jesus Christ. The only way to the Father is through Him (John 14:6).

Now before we see exactly how a sinner comes to God through Jesus Christ, let us consider the Roman Catholic teaching on salvation. There is only one way to be saved, whether you are a Roman Catholic or not. There is only one Mediator.

No man, according to Roman Catholic teaching, can have assurance of salvation in this life. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent declared that anyone who says they have assurance of salvation is anathema, that is, accursed!1 This means that one can never know whether one is saved or not. You must simply do the best you can, and hope that you have been good enough, by the time you die, to finally reach heaven (after spending an unknown period of time in purgatory).

There are certain things which every loyal Roman Catholic is taught to do, in order (supposedly) to earn his salvation; and each one is said to be essential to salvation. In Roman Catholicism there are seven “sacraments”, and any loyal Roman Catholic will know what these are: Baptism (by which a baby is said to be cleansed of original sin, and when it is supposedly “born again”); Penance (some deed to perform, given to a Roman Catholic by a priest, to atone for some sin; however, when he dies he will go to purgatory to be fully purified before entering heaven); the Holy Eucharist (“transubstantiation” is the doctrine that the bread and wine are literally changed into the body and blood of Christ, so that the Roman Catholic partakes of His actual flesh in the mass; also, Christ is, in effect, re-offered as a sacrifice to God; the mass is said to be the same sacrifice as that which He made on the cross); Confirmation (when the Roman Catholic is said to “receive the Holy Spirit”); and Extreme Unction (called “the sacrament of the anointing of the sick”, received at the point of death).

There are two other sacraments: the sacrament of Holy Matrimony is received when two Roman Catholics marry; and the sacrament of Holy Orders is for men who become priests. Thus the Roman Catholic, if he marries, must receive six of the seven sacraments in order to hope to be saved; five if he does not marry; and six if he enters the priesthood.

The sacraments are considered essential to salvation.2

But even the sacraments are not all there is to it. The Roman Catholic must be subject to all the doctrines of the Roman Catholic religion, regardless of whether or not they are supported by the Scriptures. He must, for example, believe the teaching that Mary is co-mediator with Jesus Christ; that she was conceived without original sin; that one should pray to her; that tradition is equal in authority with the Bible; etc. All the above can be verified by consulting official Roman Catholic works on these subjects. The list goes on and on.

And yet, even if he does all his church requires of him, he still cannot be sure he is saved. The best he can hope for, when he dies, is to go to purgatory until he is purified enough to enter heaven. And he has no idea how long that will take.

That, then, is the Roman Catholic teaching on salvation in a nutshell. And if you are an honest person, you will have to admit that it is a system of salvation by works. In other words, one attempts to earn one’s salvation.

Salvation by works, however, is contrary to what Scripture teaches. As was seen earlier, man is too wicked to earn his salvation by good works. God Himself has to redeem men. Man cannot keep God’s holy law, but Jesus Christ kept it perfectly; and when He died on the cross, He died for the sins of all those the Father had given Him to save.

In contrast to what the Roman Catholic institution says, the Bible, the very Word of God, declares that salvation is by grace through faith. What does this mean?

Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). When we entered the world, we were born physically; but to be born again means to be born spiritually. In the sight of God, sinful man is dead in sins, and in such a state he cannot enter heaven. A person needs to become a new creature before he or she can live forever with the Lord. The new birth is the work of God alone, who opens the heart (Acts 16:14), and gives the gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8,9), enabling the sinner to believe on Christ.

The Bible declares, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). If the Lord has made you conscious of your sinfulness, then by faith, flee to Christ! “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Christ died for the sins of His people, and rose again from the dead for their justification (Romans 4:25).

Repent of your sins. Cry out to the Lord to forgive you your sins, and forsake them. The Word of God says, “REPENT, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Jesus said, “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17). In 2 Corinthians 7:10 we read, “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation”. True sorrow for sins brings about true repentance, which results in salvation.

Repent, and receive Christ by faith as Lord and Saviour. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). “But as many as RECEIVED him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12,13). “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31). This is the sure Word of the Lord!

Salvation is a gift. It is NOT something we can earn by doing certain things. “For by grace [God’s grace, His undeserved favour] are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves [we cannot earn it]: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast [none will ever be able to boast of having earned salvation by his own works]” (Ephesians 2:8,9). Salvation is a gift of God (Romans 6:23). What is more, if you truly come to the Lord in faith and repentance, you can have the assurance that you are saved! “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life” (1 John 5:13).

The ONLY way to be saved from sin and death – that death which means total separation from God, and eternity in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15) – is through faith in Jesus Christ, in His shed blood (Romans 3:25).

The way to heaven is not a complicated system. It is a Person. Call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ!

A Roman Catholic who is converted to Christ must (and will) leave the Roman Catholic institution. The reason is clear. This false religion does not teach that a person is saved by grace through faith. It teaches salvation by works. All that Romanism teaches about salvation is contrary to God’s Word. It says that no-one can have the assurance of salvation; the Bible says that those who are truly saved can have this assurance. It divides sin into two classes (mortal and venial); the Bible makes no such distinction. ALL sin brings death (Romans 6:23). It teaches that baptism is essential to salvation; the Bible teaches that baptism is simply a sign to show outwardly what has happened inwardly. A Christian is to be baptized, not in order to be saved, because he already is saved (Acts 2:38-41: repentance comes before baptism).

Roman Catholicism teaches that one must do penance; but the Bible says that one must repent. Penance is some external work, which is not good enough: God requires a change of heart. Roman Catholicism teaches that men must confess to a priest, who forgives them; but the Bible says that only God can forgive sins (Luke 11:4; Matthew 9:6).

The Roman Catholic religion teaches transubstantiation; but the Bible declares that the Lord’s table is something Christians are to partake of simply in remembrance of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). The bread and wine do not really become His flesh and blood. They simply represent it. Rome teaches, in effect, that Christ is re-sacrificed in the mass; but the Bible says that Christ does not offer Himself often, but has offered Himself once, and once only, on the cross (Hebrews 9:25-28).

Rome teaches that one must be confirmed; but nowhere is confirmation mentioned in the Bible. It is a human invention. Likewise, there is no scriptural foundation for what is called “extreme unction.”

As for the doctrines concerning Mary: 1 Timothy 2:5, as was seen, makes it clear that Jesus is the ONLY Mediator between God and men. Mary herself admitted that she was a sinner, by calling God her Saviour (Luke 1:47). So she could not have been conceived without original sin. Nor are we to pray to her, for she was only a mere mortal, and men are to pray to God alone (Luke 11:2, etc.).

Tradition is equal in authority with the Bible, according to the Roman Catholic religion. But how can human traditions be as authoritative as the Word of Almighty God? God’s Word is the final authority (2 Timothy 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20, etc.).

As for purgatory: nowhere in the Bible is this mentioned. Heaven, yes; hell, yes; but not purgatory (John 14:2; Revelation 21:8; etc.). The saved shall go to heaven, the unsaved to hell. This is God’s revelation. Purgatory is a human invention.

Receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, by faith! Repent with all your heart of your sins! And leave the Roman Catholic institution! It is not a Christian church, but an impostor, described in Revelation 17 and 18, and called the Great Whore. “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13).

SHAUN WILLCOCK

ENDNOTES:

1. Council of Trent, Session VI, “Decree on Justification”, chapters 9 and 12, and Canons 13 and 15.

2. Council of Trent, Session VII, “Decree on the Sacraments”, Canon 4.

If you have repented of your sins and believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, or if you would like to know more about Him, His Gospel, and the true Christian life, please contact us.

Published by:

Bible Based Ministries, South Africa

info@biblebasedministries.co.uk

http://www.biblebasedministries.co.uk

Distributed by:

Contending for the Faith Ministries

42055 Crestland Drive

Lancaster, CA 93536

USA

This tract may be copied for free distribution if it is copied in full

The Night Before Christmas

‘Twas the night before Christmas, and strange as it seems;

I wasn’t indulging in covetous dreams.

But reading my Bible, I searched for a clue;

Why Christians take part in this holiday too.

 

I plainly could see that it carried His name;

But the spirit behind it just wasn’t the same.

The songs spoke of wise men, of virgin and child;

Of shepherds, of God, and all men reconciled.

 

But nothing was said of the blood and the cross;

Of repentance, and faith, and of counting the cost.

They sang of the babe, His miraculous birth;

But not of the day when He’ll judge the whole earth.

 

My Bible said nothing of Santa, or toys;

Of Frosty the Snowman, and small drummer boys.

A reference to Rudolph not once did I see;

But it seems Jeremiah did mention the tree.

 

I sat and I pondered this curious matter;

When out on the roof there arose such a clatter.

That I knew in a moment he soon would be here;

So I prayed in the Spirit and stood without fear.

 

He slipped down the chimney, quick as a flash;

And stepped from the fireplace all covered with ash.

There stood St. Nick with his bag and his beard;

He looked at the Bible I held, and he sneered,

 

“Another fanatical Christian, I see;

No stockings, no holly, no pictures of me.”

I asked him if Jesus was God in the flesh;

He said that was something he couldn’t confess.

 

He said, “I am Santa, I come from afar”;

I stood in the truth – “The Devil you are.

That suit and that beard doesn’t fool me one bit;

Your jolly deception is straight from the pit.”

 

“Beneath all your Ho Ho Ho’s, Lucifer lurks;

With your all-seeing eyes and your gospel of works.

Like a thief in the night you impersonate Christ;

Returning to judge the naughty and nice.”

 

“So call Christmas pagan,” he said;

“That’s Okay.

‘Cause that’s what my sons at the Watchtower say.”

 

“You’ll look like a pagan or like a deceiver;

But none will suspect you to be a believer.”

I said, “I don’t care what your servants will say;

My loyalty lies with the Ancient of Days.”

 

“No matter how many abuses are hurled;

My Bible says be not conformed to this world.”

“You have no power, and no part of me;

So I stand on God’s Word, and command you to flee.”

 

He squealed like a pig that was stuck with a knife;

He ran to the chimney and climbed for his life.

And I heard him exclaim, as he drove out of sight;

“Merry Xmas to all, and a long, dark night.”

 

~ Unknown ~

Soli Deo Gloria

‘HOLY WAR’ Against South Africa by Shaun Willcock

HolyWar2 To any South African wanting to know the true history of South Africa from 6th April 1652, and even before then, when the Portuguese explorers Diaz and Da Gama sailed around the southern African coasts, until the 1994 ‘democracy’, this is a highly recommended book. The historical book ‘HOLY WAR’ Against South Africa authored by Shaun Willcock is a well documented and researched resource, and certainly a must read for any person wanting to know the truth of South African history and not the re-written version we have today. Karl Marx said: “The first battlefield is the re-writing of history.” This book above should be an academic history text book – for school, university and theological students, as well as for the average man on the street. This book is grounded in evangelical biblical truth which shows the hand of GOD in all that has transpired in South Africa.

Here is the INTRODUCTION quoted from pages 5-7 of the book:

In April 1994, after decades in which South Africa was literally torn apart by a Red revolution of horrifying proportions, the Communist-controlled African National Congress came to power in this great land. The Marxist murderers and other assorted criminals who jubilantly hailed the dawn of a “New South Africa” had bombed and burned, shot and stabbed their way to power, leaving in their wake tens of thousands of people dead, brutally exterminated in the name of “liberation”. In order to achieve their goals, they had to clamber over a veritable mountain of corpses, a mountain of their making.

The issue of South Africa became one around which the entire world united, as it had never united before. The world acted in concert to destroy it. This book sets forth a major reason for this unprecedented global focus: the ambitions of the Vatican, operating through powerful political channels that, on the surface, would appear to have no connects with the Vatican or the Roman Catholic religion at all. The world, however, can be a strange place, and full of surprises; for one thing, Roman Catholicism is a political as well as a religious system, with a centuries-old lust for total world domination, and no scruples whatsoever about how to achieve it; for another thing, political rulers will enter into the most unlikely alliances in order to achieve their own ambitions. And they are well aware of the power of religion to move men, even entire populations. One religion in particular, immensely influential on a truly global scale: Roman Catholicism, now holding sway over almost one out of every five people on earth.

This book documents the immense role played by the Roman Catholic system, that religio-political institution pretending to be a Christian church, in the South African revolution. But it was not alone in this. The Papal system, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations (Rev.17:5), was the mastermind, certainly; but its religious daughters, those supposedly “Protestant” institutions affiliated with the South African Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches, were also deeply involved in supporting the revolution, and their diabolical involvement is amply documented here. This book emphasises the undeniable fact that the revolution would never have succeeded were it not for the enthusiastic, active and sustained support of these religious institutions, which, in the name of Christ, blasphemously threw their weight behind the Communist revolutionaries; so that it can be said, without fear of contradiction, that in a very real sense this was a religious revolution. A revolution waged as much with terribly distorted interpretations of the Bible as with bullets. A revolution directed as much by those paying allegiance to the Vatican, and to Geneva, as to Moscow.

Wicked men, falsely claiming to be Christians, through the centuries have done many terrible deeds. But our own twentieth century is replete with examples of religious barbarity. In the first four years of the last decade of the twentieth century, over 50 000 people were killed, in South Africa, by savage revolutionaries urged on, every step of the way, by Roman Catholic and Protestant religious leaders. To many, this may seem unbelievable. yet it is all too horrifyingly true, as the accumulated evidence of many years makes plain. The book pulls no punches, and the author makes no apology for this. Religious institutions brought untold suffering to the peoples of South Africa, and the truth must be told, in order to rip away the mask of piety and holiness which they wear with such hypocrisy and effrontery. Multitudes are deceived by them. The author urges every reader to look to Jesus Christ, the holy, harmless, undefiled, spotless Son of the living God, and where those who claim to be his followers do not bear his image, they should be shunned for the deceivers that they are.

Part One is a brief history of South Africa, from its beginnings until 1910. This section gives important background information, and examines the subject from a biblical perspective, tracing the hand of God in the affairs of this country, and analysing the various events in the light of the Lord’s sovereign purposes for nations and individuals. Part One, then, gives the historical backdrop to Part Two.

Part Two is concerned with South Africa from 1910 (the year of the Union) onwards; its primary focus being the part played by the Vatican, and various Protestant institutions, in the Communist revolution which for so many years engulfed this country, and which was finally victorious.

What is written in these pages reveals that the Papal Harlot, the centuries-old enemy of the truth, remains what she ever has been, and ever will be; and that, in our day, Protestant institutions, daughters of the Harlot, have imbibed her fanatical belief that the end justifies the means – even if those means include terrorism, revolution, untold suffering and bloodshed.

The author has also been at pains to show that the true and living God, the God of the Bible, is in absolute and sovereign control of all events, great and small, that occur on this earth. His purposes are being accomplished. Nothing is by chance, nothing is by accident. And the knowledge of this glorious truth ought to be of immense comfort and encouragement to the true Christian, whether he lives in South Africa or in some other part of the world. For of this the author is certain: we live in momentous times. Behind the scenes, great plans are being set in motion by wicked men. Only in Christ is there peace. Only the true Christian can lift his eyes, as it were, to heaven, and see the Almighty God, the Lord of heaven and earth, upon his throne, in absolute control of all events. And only to the true children of God did the Lord Jesus Christ speak those lovely words: “In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” (Jn. 16:33).

Shaun Willcock 1994

This book, together with one of Shaun Willcock’s other books, which writer recommends too, titled The Madness of Multiculturalism*, speaks volumes as to why South Africa is presently a wicked, evil and depraved Marxist-communist nation under the wrath of Almighty GOD. This stems from the Vatican/ANC/SACP alliance who peddled a false gospel through their “liberation theology” and thereby deceived the majority of South Africans to be a part of the Harlot’s communistic revolution, which we continuously see being played out even today. History is repeating itself,

8  Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same. 
9  By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed. ~ Job 4:8,9

29  For our God is a consuming fire. ~ Hebrews 12:29

Soli Deo Gloria

_______________________________

Footnotes:

More articles by Shaun Willcock can be read at Bible Based Ministries.

* Description of The Madness of Multiculturalism book:

The Madness of Multiculturalism cover.indd Cultural relativism is the false doctrine that all cultures are equally valid and good. And multiculturalism is the false doctrine that everyone must respect everyone else’s culture, and tolerate and even celebrate all cultural practices, so that all humans will live together in harmony as one big, happy, tolerant, multicultural family. But this is neither possible nor sensible. The fact is, multiculturalism is madness.

When we evaluate and judge cultures and cultural practices by the light of the Bible, we find that all cultures are definitely not equal; that those cultures which were once greatly influenced by Protestantism were superior to all others; and that no true Christian should respect cultural practices that are degraded and sinful. Cultural relativism and multiculturalism are being used to break down the influence and the superiority of western, once-Protestant-influenced culture, and they are simply two more weapons in Satan’s modern arsenal in his ceaseless war against the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Royal Agricultural Show 2016 Evangelism

2016 Royal Show Logo It has been a long while since we have reported what has been taking place in the local harvest field only by the grace of GOD. Our outreach at the Royal Show this year took place on the 28th and the 30th May and the 3rd June 2016.

Praise GOD – this year the security guards gave us a rest. Marius, Jono, my wife Tammy and Gary handed out Gospel literature and the Name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was lifted up!

Spoke to a Muslim man named Saayheed (?) who agreed to have a discussion on camera if his face would not be shown. Well, he allowed his face to be shown when he decided to move off camera. The conversation really took a turn when Saayheed denounced that Jesus Christ is the Son of GOD and that he does not believe in being “born-again”! Saayheed then hastened to end the conversation. It is clear that Islam does not serve the One and Only True and Living GOD of Creation Who is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, GOD’s Word being the Bible!

The discussion together with part of the open-air preaching which followed can be viewed on the play-list hereunder:

Other conversations were also had, especially with an Indian hawker selling avocado pears named Roy, who is backslidden in his faith in Jesus Christ. Gary shared the Gospel with Roy dealing with the severity and mercy of GOD our Saviour Who is angry with the wicked every day.

11  God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day. ~ Psalm 7:11

A day or so later Roy was presented by us with a whole list of printed Scripture verses and a new Authorised Version (KJV) Holy Bible – he agreed to take it and read it!

Pedestrian crossing preaching Cee-Jay next to a RooikatSergeant Padayachee second right

On day 8, Gary took his wife Tammy and grandson Cee-Jay into the Royal Show Grounds. Gospel tracts were handed out as we walked in and around the stalls and a long discussion was had with a Sergeant Padayachee as we discussed the Naval Marines and its disbanding. He also willingly showed us around their displays explaining how the Army is now involved in fighting the rhino poachers in game reserves. Whilst in an ops-vehicle Gary then after relating to the dangers of being in the military transitioned to the Law and Gospel of Grace of our Great GOD and Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ, after finding out that Sgt Padayachee had a Roman Catholic background.

We humbly request all believers to join us in prayer for one-another and for those who GOD has ordained to hear the Gospel of His Son Jesus.

Hereunder, are previous links to our RAS Evangelism . . .

Soli Deo Gloria

%d bloggers like this: