This radical shift has been happening for 50 years.
Even Pope Paul VI warned of the widespread availability and use of contraception and its consequences including same-sex attraction ("Humane Vitae" (1968)):
(1) It will âlead to conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality.â (e.g., Massive increase in Adultery, Fornication, Divorce, Same-Sex Attraction)
(2) â[T]he manâ will lose respect for âthe womanâ and âno longer (care) for her physical and psychological equilibriumâ and it will come to âthe point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.â (e.g., Marital bliss now non-existent in most homes)
(3) It will place a âdangerous weapon ... in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies." (e.g., Communist Chinese Government's "One Child" Policy)
(4) Many will assume unlimited dominion over their own bodies. (e.g., abortion, sterilization, IVF, plastic surgery including "reassignment" surgery).
Which warning isn't materializing, even in the Church (e.g., UCC, ECUSA, ELCA, PCUSA, etc)?
Since this is a Remnant "solas" site many of the pastors and broadcasters here would also subscribe to Sola Scriptura -- the "Bible alone."
However, if a listener also subscribed to Sola Scriptura, why would he ever desire to know God better, find the True Church or ensure his salvation by actually listening to these -- or for that matter -- any sermons? Doesn't Sola Scriptura require that he read the Bible alone to attain its wisdom?
If the Bible alone is the sole source of Truth, locating Church and salvation, why would he want to add to the Bible by listening to a sermon, reading the WCF or another form of modern or ancient tradition?
To be honest, if one's an avid adherent to Sola Scriptura, wouldn't he be more akin to a Desert Father -- totally isolated with his Bible alone -- far, far away from any other non-biblical influences like preaching, teaching or commentaries?
Otherwise isn't one really and ultimately a Bible + tradition Christian?
EP wrote: The National Covenant of Scotland has gone into the greatest detail to decry all the wicked abominations or the Harlot Church of Rome...
If an alien lands on Earth, is directed by God to discover that Christianity provides the way to Heaven and finds a Bible to read by the hand of the Holy Spirit, how does he get out of his Bible that the RCC is the "Harlot Church of Rome"?
Instead, wouldn't he eventually read these verses (among many others)?:
* "[I]f thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Romans 10:9).
* "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together" (Hebrews 10:25).
* "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).
* "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (John 6:53).
Then, why would the alien be damned if Christ called him to Himself, he said "Jesus is Lord" with his lips and then joined the RCC?
Dawkins started it by branding the Roman Catholic Church âevilâ and calling the Pope âa leering old villain.â
If a person prayed this prayer (below) or something like it, isn't he saved? Likewise, wasn't the thief on the cross saved by loving Christ this way, too?
Now if you're saved and you know this beyond a shadow of a doubt, do you even need to go to a church? The thief didn't. Millions have prayed this prayer, are saved beyond a reasonable doubt yet never darken the door of any denomination. Perhaps they're part of a home church, watch Christian broadcasting or listen to SermonAudio.com sermons. Would these ultimately be damned?
Then, if one of these stumbles into a RCC and years later bothers to become a member, does his membership vow somehow damn him?
Finally, if I can sit on my sofa on Sunday mornings and be saved, why would I be damned if I get off my duff to join the RCC?
Wasn't the person saved the moment he prayed a prayer like this?:
You Can Receive Christ Right Now by Faith Through Prayer (Prayer is talking with God)
God knows your heart and is not so concerned with your words as He is with the attitude of your heart. The following is a suggested prayer:
Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be.
Does this prayer express the desire of your heart? If it does, I invite you to pray this prayer right now, and Christ will come into your life, as He promised.
"If you do not belong to a church, do not wait to be invited. Take the initiative; call the pastor of a nearby church where Christ is honored and His Word is preached. Start this week, and make plans to attend regularly."
Where in your Bible does it say you can't worship at a church with a "Mass," priest, etc?
When a person is saved by Christ alone through faith alone and knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that his name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life, does it matter which denomination he's in? (e.g., ECUSA, PCUSA, UCC, ELCA, SBC, PCA, OPC, RCC, EC, home church or no church at all).
If it does matter, which of these denominations must he be in to be saved?
When a person reads his Bible, how does he know which of these denominations he may join, which he may not join or whether or not to join any?
Michael Hranek wrote: FAS Do you think the RCC is "the true church" or an apostate counterfeit?
As a Calvinist, I was taught to hate the Church and its Pope, the anti-Christ:
"It is impossible to be just to the Catholic Church. The moment men cease to pull against it they feel a tug towards it. The moment they cease to shout it down they begin to listen to it with pleasure. The moment they try to be fair to it they begin to be fond of it. But when that affection has passed a certain point it begins to take on the tragic and menacing grandeur of a great love affair."
-G.K. Chesterton, "The Catholic Church and Conversion," 1926.
Michael Hranek wrote: FAS Since you avoided the question I wrote to you at your request. Here is one for you, 'Is the RCC hypocritical to procalim itself "pro-life" yet embrace pro-abortion politicans like Barak Obama and Nancy Peolosy (sp?)?
The RCC's USCCB has been hypocritical on many modern issues including The abortive Pill.
"The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts."
~ St. John Chrysostom (347-407), Doctor of the Church
We're called to love God with our whole heart, mind, soul and strength and love our neighbor as ourselves.
At Dr. Mohler's vast SBTS, many married seminarians are asking him these foundational and yes, awkward, questions as their spouses typically use The Pill so that they can avoid children and work during the 2-3 years there. Dr. Mohler is having to grapple with truths that his predecessors were unlikely to have even heard much less addressed.
Jessica Dawson wrote: I was treated badly by doctors and a social worker, for not deciding to have an abortion at 15 years of age. I was treated badly by the nurses in the hospital, when I was in labour and during my hospital stay. I was even treated badly by the janitor at the hospital, for having a baby so young.
"He who is without sin may cast the first stone"
As their teeth we like knives, everyday you chose life in their midst.
"It turns out that we human beings are incredibly adept at denying the obvious [about the consequences of The Pill] and refusing to see what is right before our eyes. The fact is we already know. We have an avalanche of data and experience pointing to the cost of the sexual revolution. But it is still almost breathtakingly amazing that there are so many people in this society who will look at that data and find what they describe as "good news." They will find some way to celebrate even such things as the break-up of marriages, the reality that children spend so much time without a father in the home -- on such a large scale.
"The most fundamental moral question is: "Are we going to allow our hearts and minds to be directed toward what is actually true, even if that truth is very awkward?"
Michael Hranek wrote: You ought to be ashamed of yourself. While multiple millions of babies have had their lives robbed from them the Lord Jesus Christ willingly went to the cross for sinners who could not save themselves OR EACH OTHER that ought to means something to you unless your heart is utterly hardened against Him.
"Until the 1930 Anglican Lambeth Conference no Christian denomination endorsed contraception as moral. The Washington Post Editors advised against the Federal Council of Churches' endorsement of Lambeth:
âIt is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of or suppression of human life. The Church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the âscientificâ production of human souls.
"Carried to its logical conclusion, the committeeâs report, if carried into effect, would sound the death knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be âcareful and restrainedâ is preposterous.â
With today's "indiscriminate [sexual] immorality," isn't this a "death knell" even for denominations?
John UK wrote: There is no doubt in my mind that The Mass is a great evil, deceiving as it does the hearts of those who submit to it, sentencing them to hell while they were thinking of going to heaven because of it. It is evil because it demotes Christ from his kingly position and puts him into the hands of evil "priests" who claim to "give him" to evil parishioners who are impenitent and unbelieving (biblically speaking).
(1.) Jesus teaches: "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (John 6:53 et al). If one misinterprets this, thinking that Jesus literally wants us to eat His body in the Lord's Supper (as Lutherans, some Anglicans and all Early Church Fathers understand) -- this is "a great evil"?
(2.) Whereas, the holocaust of 70 million children in America, many killed by Christians using abortifacients (hormonal contraceptives) is not "a great evil"?
Why is (1.) a crystal-clear evil (though many honest Evangelicals would disagree with this assessment), but (2.) is not "a great evil" -- though everyone agrees that the more famous but smaller holocaust was evil?