Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship, says radical Muslims would make better theologians than most Christians in America.
In his new book, The Faith, the prominent evangelical observes that radical Islamists have a better understanding of the Muslim faith than most Christians in America have of Christianity.
A study by Barna Group shows that 60 percent of Americans fail to name five of the Ten Commandments, cites Colson in his book.
His own interaction with those he deemed as mature Christians also confirmed that many believers are not sure what the biblical core beliefs are.
"One of the problems in the churches today is that we don't know what we believe and why we believe it and why it matters," said Colson in a statement for his book. "The result of that is the culture defines us. We are put in a stereotypical pot by the media and, of course, mischaracterized totally by the aggressive atheists who are publishing their books."
Ignorance of biblical knowledge can lead to a crippled worldview, according to Colson in his book, that prevents Christians from defending their faith against cultural threats such as postmodernism and Islamo-fascism.
"The Christian West is under assault by the twin challenges of secularism and radical Islam," he writes in The Faith. "Only through Christianity, I believe, can Western Europe and America meet these desperate challenges."
In his book, Colson calls on churches to meet these challenges by returning to what he terms "radical Christianity" or orthodox Christianity. Basic truths as handed down from teachings of the early Apostles are discussed in the book, which is co-authored by Harold Fickett.
While skeptics may perceive a return to orthodoxy to be anti-progressive, Colson asserts that "progress does not always mean discovering something new."
"Sometimes it means rediscovering wisdom that is ancient and eternal," he writes.
According to the author, the book serves to provide new theological grounding for Christians and appeal to non-believers who are interested in the basic beliefs of Christianity.
The book, which hit bookstores earlier this month, is also accompanied by a free online study guide which is available through Zondervan. Pastors and church leaders are encouraged to use the guide in conjunction with the book in their small groups and Sunday school classes.
RSS
Comments
RBB,
We need to be cautious with everything that we read; there is so much deception taking place. Lord help us all. I also agree that we should be helping all those in need.
Online4Him - It was his description of the book "Ecumenical Jihad" and the recommendation Colson wrote on the back.
I still feel the same way about working to help others, with anyone who is willing. But my view of Colson is much more cautious.
RBB,
What was it in this sermon that raised an eyebrow for you?
RBB,
Lol - I don't mind when others disagree with me; we have been discussing various issues that concern us both. I do agree with your post; that we are saved through what “Jesus Christ” alone has done in our behalf and we are adopted into the family of God by faith alone. Our works are done out of pure gratitude for what Christ has already done for us and our works do not give us any merit before God. Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice is all “sufficient” and has paid our debt. All the praise, glory, honor, dominion, and power both now and throughout eternity belong to Jesus Christ “alone”.
Online4Him-
If you had sent me the link to this sermon I wouldn't have been disagreeing with you on Colson.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=3907235851
Online4Him - Would you agree with the following statement? If not please explain where you think it's incorrect.
We agree that justification is not earned by any good works or merits of our own; it is entirely God's gift, conferred through the Father's sheer graciousness, out of the love that he bears us in his Son, who suffered on our behalf and rose from the dead for our justification. Jesus was "put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification" (Romans 4:25). In justification, God, on the basis of Christ's righteousness alone, declares us to be no longer his rebellious enemies but his forgiven friends, and by virtue of his declaration it is so.
The New Testament makes it clear that the gift of justification is received through faith. "By grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8). By faith, which is also the gift of God, we repent of our sins and freely adhere to the gospel, the good news of God's saving work for us in Christ. By our response of faith to Christ, we enter into the blessings promised by the gospel. Faith is not merely intellectual assent but an act of the whole person, involving the mind, the will, and the affections, issuing in a changed life. We understand that what we here affirm is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by justification by faith alone (solafide).
Now Paul explains the means whereby God pardons us. We are “justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24). Paul tells us that God’s freely bestowed declaration of our innocence is the answer to our problem. Notice that this justification is not based on anything in us—not our works, nor our goodness, nor our faith, nor our foreseen faith or works, nor our future faithfulness. It is based on something else outside of us. In fact, it is a gift. You don’t earn, deserve, merit or contribute to God’s gift. You receive it by faith as a gift of His grace.
But Paul doesn’t leave it there; he emphatically points our eyes away from ourselves to the cross of Christ for justification. We are, he says, “justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith . . . to demonstrate His righteousness” (Romans 3:25,26). That is, the foundation of the solution to our problem is Christ’s satisfying of the due penalty of our sins on the cross—
RBB,
The document itself is a gloss over of the real theological issues that cannot be denied by simply stating “Evangelicals and Catholics Together”. Charles Colson and Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (Lutheran who converted to Catholicism) authored the ecumenical documents Evangelicals and Catholics Together and Evangelicals and Catholics Together II. The approval for the wording was required to come from Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy, president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for promoting Christian Unity.
The whole document is a vague in its attempt to project Christian unity that does and cannot exist from a biblical perspective. I am sure you realize that when the document proclaims under the section “We Affirm Together” – “We affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ”; this is so misleading in the sense that Protestants and Catholics understand and proclaim vastly different theological concepts of “grace” and “faith”. Not to mention the concepts of “salvation”, “justification”, and “sanctification”; I could go on and on highlighting the differences between the two but anyone who has a sound biblical knowledge will recognize the differences and the implications for accepting unbiblical dogmas (no point intended).
The ECT document seeks to provide a basis for a common front against the evils of our age, but in the process, it does away with the single means by which those goals can be obtained: the gospel. The simple fact is that Roman Catholics and Protestants, if they are honest, are far apart on the issues of the gospel. There is no unity with reference to the message we preach to the world, and it is pure make-believe to say otherwise. ECT is a deception: it lies to the world when it speaks of a unity that does not exist, and it lies to Christians when it does not properly represent the positions it attempts to make compatible. We may sympathize with the motivations of the authors, recognizing the power of the emotions evoked by abortion and other such evils; but if we wish to honor and love God, we cannot allow our sentiments to overthrow Biblical truth. Instead, Protestants such as Charles Colson should use their positions to powerfully and clearly proclaim the great truths that shook the world four centuries ago, sola gratia, sola Christi, sola fide, sola scriptura. Such would not be politically correct, but it would be Divinely Correct, and such should be the aim of the believer.
wilderness,
Well said and amen!!!!
Greetings:
Christians must be careful not to quickly unite as one in Christ with every organization that calls itself, “Christian.” If we endorse religious groups that are peppered with dangerous doctrines, compromise, and falsities, then our endorsement may influence a person to pursue and adopt their teachings. We must be careful, lest we lead someone into damnable heresies.
In addition, a Christian fellowship, led by the Holy Spirit, does not need to hold hands with religious organizations that dangerously distort sound doctrine, just to get things done in the name of Christ. Each person socially doing their part to fight against neighborhood crime or vote against immoral laws is one thing, but uniting as one in Christ under a Christian banner when some of the religious groups represented are contrary to sound doctrine is another.
Chris333 and Online4Him -
While I understand your reticence to deal with certain groups you might not agree with, or know first hand, I find it impossible to refuse to work with anyone who is willing to help another who is in need. I would never want to tell someone they would have to go hungry, or not have the clothing or shelter they needed, because I didn't agree with someone on how one is saved, or who they believe Jesus is. Further I don't believe scripture backs up failing to help others for that reason. To the contrary when Jesus told the disciples not to tell the man casting out demons in His name to stop because he wasn't one of them, I think He was making it clear that we should work with those we don't necessarily agree with. I guess we all have to do what we feel we will be comfortable answering for at the Judgment seat.
Chris333 - Concerning Calvinism I have to say that while both sides have their passages of scripture to back them up, the reform view has by far the majority, and more than that, common sense calls me in that direction as well. Without reform theology God's "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" makes no sense. His dealings with Cain and Abel, Saul and David, and others where He obviously preferred one person over another, or overlooked things they had done even when He had given a law specifically against it. All these things make sense in light of reform theology, but not when viewed through the idea that God loves all equally and it's only the free will of a person that makes the difference in how He treats them.
It also makes a very large difference with some major problems facing evangelical Christianity today. If you accept that God gives the increase, instead of placing that responsibility on man, you remove the need for the "seeker sensitive", clown church, "do anything to get them in the church and make them happy" attitude of modern evangelicalism. You can concentrate on preaching the whole Word of God and let Him deal with saving who He will. Your job is to simply deliver the gospel message, just as it was in the beginning of the church.
Online4Him - While the ecumenical moves made by groups like the Council of Churches are meant to bring denominations together in the way I think you are thinking, the document we were originally discussing hasn't any such goal as far as I can see. Could you name the part of it that you find troubling?
correction:
The “theological unity” is the underlining goal behind the “social issues” that they are presently being promoted.
RBB,
“It seems that we have bigger fish to fry here than if we don't agree on all the points of Christianity, however fundamental they are”.
There is no bigger fish than our “salvation”; the RCC does not accept salvation by faith alone as the scriptures teach. Should we be mingling with a system that sets itself up in the place of Christ? I agree that the social ills that you highlighted should be addressed by both sides but these social issues are not the “ultimate” goal of the ecumenical movement. The World Council of Churches (WCC) is the broadest and most inclusive among the many organized expressions of the modern ecumenical movement, a movement whose ultimate goal is Christian unity. As Chris333 mentioned his disinterest in working with Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses; I believe that Protestant Christians should not be seeking unity with the RCC for the very same reason. The WCC, the emergent church movement, and other world religions are attempting to develop an all inclusive faith which demotes “biblical doctrine” for unity.
The “theological unity” is the underlining goal behind the “social issues” that they are presently promoting. This movement can only subject the Word of God in order to elevate an all inclusive gospel and religion. Does this sound farfetched? Not when you consider it in light of biblical prophecy; depending on your eschatological view, this may not even make sense. However, when evangelicals begin to say that the differences that divide Protestantism and Catholicism are minor and we should not continue to highlight our theological differences; this makes me very uncomfortable. Was the Reformation a mistake or do the biblical principles that were rediscovered and proclaimed during this time period still matter? The Calvinist-Arminian debate is something that does not affect one’s salvation in Christ. Subjecting oneself to RCC’s theology is something entirely different.
RBB,
I agree with a lot of what you said, except for the "no matter how fundamental" the differences are statement. For instance I am not interested in working with Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses in the name of Christ, because quite honestly, they are not working in the name of the same Christ as Christians are. So as long as we are careful not to compromise the main points of our faith, specifically the ones we feel are completely necessary for salvation, then we can have unity. I for one am in complete support of the unity of all Christian churches. My personal stance is that the wide variety of denominations is inherently evil. Take two examples, the Lutheran and Presbyterian churches. Both sides agree that you can be a Lutheran or Presbyterian and go to heaven, only one side or neither are theologically perfect but not both. And at the same time, the differences they have are minor (mainly being ecclesiastical, which both agree is not in anyway bearing on salvation or right doctrine, and the issue of predestination). Why are they separate? Why do we have such a thing as a "Lutheran" church. Certainly we will not tell God when we are in heaven, "I am a Lutheran" or "I am a Presbyterian" rather we will say, "I am a believer in Christ, a Christian". As well, Paul calls for us to be unified, and God calls for us to be unified. I restate that it is only evil that causes the denominations to exist, there is no good in it.
RBB,
I have to step out for now; I will respond to your post later this afternoon :)
Chris333,
You are welcome to join our friendly discussion here. I agree with your post - well said! A brief summary was given to explain my position on the Calvinist and Arminian debate. The reason for the brief summary was to zero in on the compromise that is taking place by “some” evangelicals and their eagerness to rub shoulders with Rome. The “ECT” document is a poor attempt to iron out the historical division between these two camps. In my opinion, the RCC will never change (theologically); unfortunately, “Protestants” are the ones compromising biblical truth in order to appear acceptable to the RCC.