 |
founded by Bill Fields in 1983 |
Unequally Yoked: World Vision, Prison Fellowship,
Fuller Theological Seminary unite with Hindus, Sikhs,
Jews, Muslims and Buddhists...jump
to evidence
UpDate: 3/8/06
Greetings, Your website maintains (in very negative terms) that Prison
Fellowship International is a partner with the International Center for
Religion and Democracy. But a visit to ICRD's website's partners
page reveals that Prison Fellowship International is not listed anywhere.
(Nor is Fuller Theological Seminary, which you also decry as "unequally
yoked.") Please correct your website.
Thank you,
Karen Strong
Karen Strong
Senior Vice President of Ministry Services
Prison Fellowship
44180 Riverside Parkway
Lansdowne, VA 20176
703-478-0100
PeaceMakers.net responded: Hi Karen...it was at one time on their ICRD's website...If you would like me to add a date and identify it no longer is, I'd be glad to. Would you like to address Dr. Colson's acceptance of funds from Rev. Moon or one of his affiliates? thank you.
followed by PeaceMakers.net research:
Sharon...3/08/06 unequally yoked is not bound by which page an
entity is on...
http://icrd.org/council.html
Dr. Richard Mouw
-President, Fuller Theological Seminary
-Noted author/lecturer on philosophy & religion
Mr. Ronald Nikkel
-President & CEO, Prison Fellowship International
-Leading advocate of restorative justice
http://icrd.org/council.html
Honorable William Brehm
-Founder & former Chairman, SRA Int'l., Inc.
-Former Chairman, Fuller Theological Seminary
http://icrd.org/partners.html
World Vision
UpFront: We are saddened to learn that a former PeaceMakers board member (Mr. David Vander Mey-1980's) is a part of a growing "movement" of those who profess "Christianity" uniting with non-Christians for what they call peacemaking...
"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers.
For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship
can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ
and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What
agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the
temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk
among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." Therefore
come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you. I will be a Father to you, and you will be
my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18
Example:
Let me illustrate in the simplest terms the error of "religious reconciliation"
as opposed to God's Peacemaking (the establishiment/restoration of Christ's
righteousness Matthew 5-7)-Israel and Palestine are at war from their fleshly
ways James 4, but primarily stated the major obstacle to peace is who controls
the area in Jerusalem where Solomon's Temple stood/stands, where the Jews
believe their god lives and the Dome of the Rock-where the Muslim's believe
their god lives, both rejecting Christ Jesus. Now in Christ Jesus- Christianity,
Our heavenly Father says...
"I have loved you," says the Lord. "But you ask, `How have you loved us?' "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the Lord says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals." Malachi 1:2-3
Our Father's Son-Christ Jesus, our Savior and Lord says...
"Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but
you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem. Jesus
declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the
Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans
worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation
is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the
true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are
the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers
must worship in spirit and in truth." The woman said, "I know that
Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything
to us." Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he." John 4:20-26
We, who profess Christ Jesus as Savior and Lord must preach Christ for
one main reason:
1. Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the
truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 14:6
And the results of lifting up Jesus Christ..."But
evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer
persecution". 2 Timothy 3:11-12
From John Calvin Collection by Ages Library 1-800-297-4307
AgesLibrary.com
Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion: Book III Chaper 19, Section
12.
" Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23
ON THE RIGHT USE OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM AND THE RIGHT RENUNCIATION OF IT
Still the matter will remain in doubt unless we grasp whom we are to
consider weak, whom Pharisees. If this distinction is removed, I do not
see what use for freedom really remains in relation to offenses, for it
will always be in the greatest danger. But Paul seems to me most clearly
to have defined, both by teaching and by example, how far our freedom must
either be moderated or purchased at the cost of offenses. F485 When Paul
took Timothy into his company, he circumcised him. [<441603>Acts 16:3.]
But he could not be brought to circumcise Titus. [<480203>Galatians
2:3.] Here was a diversity of acts but no change of purpose or mind. That
is, in circumcising Timothy, although he was “free from all,” he made himself
“a slave to all”; and “to the Jews” he “became as a Jew” in order to win
Jews; to those under the law he “became as one under the law... that” he
“might win those under the law” [<460919>1 Corinthians 9:19-20 p.];
“all things to all men that” he “might save many” [<460922>1 Corinthians
9:22 p.], as he elsewhere writes. We have due control over our freedom
if it makes no difference to us to restrict it when it is fruitful to do
so. What he had in view when he strongly refused to circumcise Titus he
testifies when he thus writes: “But even Titus, who was with me, was not
compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek, but because of false
brethren surreptitiously brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom,
which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage—to
them we did not yield submission, even for a moment, that the truth of
the gospel might be preserved among you” [<480203>Galatians 2:3-5 p.].
We have need also to assert our freedom if through the unjust demands of
false apostles it be endangered in weak consciences. We must at all times
seek after love and look toward the edification of our
neighbor. “All things,” he says elsewhere, “are lawful to me, but not
all things are helpful. All things are lawful, but not all things build
up. Let no one seek his own good but another’s.” [<461023>1 Corinthians
10:23-24 p.] Nothing is plainer than this rule: that we should use our
freedom if it results in the edification of our neighbor, but if it does
not help our neighbor, then we should forgo it. There are those who pretend
a Pauline prudence in abstaining from freedom, while there is nothing to
which they 329
apply it less than to the duties of love. To protect their own repose,
they wish all mention of freedom to be buried; when it is no less important
sometimes to use our neighbors’ freedom for their good and edification
than on occasion to restrain it for their own benefit. But it is the part
of a godly man to realize that free power in outward matters has been given
him in order that he may be the more ready for all the duties of love.
13. WE MUST NOT ON PRETEXT OF LOVE OF NEIGHBOR OFFEND AGAINST GOD
All that I have taught about avoiding offenses I mean to be referred
to things intermediate and indifferent. For the things necessary to be
done must not be omitted for fear of any offense. For as our freedom must
be subordinated to love, so in turn ought love itself to abide under purity
of faith. Surely, it is fitting here also to take love into consideration,
even as far as to the altar [cf. <400523>Matthew 5:23-24]; that is,
that for our neighbor’s sake we may not offend God. We must not approve
the
intemperance of those who do nothing without raising a tumult and who
prefer to tear into everything rather than open a matter gently. But those
people also are not to be listened to who, after making themselves leaders
in a thousand sorts of wickedness, pretend that they must act so as not
to cause offense to their neighbors [cf. <460809>1 Corinthians 8:9];
as if they were not in the meantime building up their neighbors’ consciences
into evil, especially when they ever stick fast in the same mud without
hope of getting out. And suave fellows are they who, whether their neighbor
is to be instructed in doctrine or in example of life, say he must be fed
with milk while they steep him in the worst and deadliest opinions. Paul
recalls that he fed the Corinthians with milk. [<460302>1 Corinthians
3:2.] But if the papal Mass had then been among them, would he have performed
sacrifice
to furnish them with milk? No, for milk is not poison. They are therefore
lying when they claim to be feeding those whom they are cruelly killing
under the guise of blandishments. Granted that this sort of dissimulation
is to be approved for the moment—how long will they feed their children
with this same milk? For if these never grow up sufficiently to be able
to
bear even some light food at least, it is certain that they were never
brought up on milk. 330 Two reasons prevent me from contending with them
more sharply: first, their banalities are scarcely worth refuting, since
they are deservedly despised among all sane men; secondly, I do not want
to do again what I have already abundantly demonstrated in special treatises.
F486 Only let my readers remember this: with whatever obstacles Satan and
the world strive to turn us away from God’s commands or delay us from following
what he appoints, we must nonetheless vigorously go forward. Then, whatever
dangers threaten, we are not free to turn aside even a fingernail’s breadth
from this same God’s authority, and it is not lawful under any pretext
for
us to attempt anything but what he allows. (Freedom and conscience
in relation to traditions, and to civil government, 14-16)
14. FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FROM ALL HUMAN LAW
Now, since believers’ consciences, having received the privilege of their freedom, which we previously described, have, by Christ’s gift, attained to this, that they should not be entangled with any snares of observances in those matters in which the Lord has willed them to be free, we conclude that they are released from the power of all men. For Christ does not deserve to forfeit our gratitude for his great generosity—nor consciences, their profit. And we should not put a light value upon something that we see cost Christ so dear, since he valued it not with gold or silver but with his own blood [<600118>1 Peter 1:18-19]. Paul does not hesitate to say that Christ’s death is nullified if we put our souls under men’s subjection [cf.<480221>Galatians 2:21]. For in certain chapters of the letter to the Galatians, Paul is solely trying to show how to us Christ is obscured, or rather extinguished, unless our consciences stand firm in their freedom. They have surely fallen away from it if they can, at men’s good pleasure, be ensnared by the bonds of laws and constitutions F487 [cf.<480501>Galatians 5:1,4]. But as this is something very much worth knowing, so it needs a longer and clearer explanation. For immediately a word is uttered concerning the abrogating of human constitutions, huge troubles are stirred up, partly by the seditious, partly by slanderers—as if all human obedience were at the same time removed and cast down. 331
15. THE TWO KINGDOMS
Therefore, in order that none of us may stumble on that stone, let us
first consider that there is a twofold government in man: one aspect is
spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed in piety and in reverencing
God; the second is political, whereby man is educated for the duties of
humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men. These are usually
called the “spiritual” and the “temporal” jurisdiction F488 (not improper
terms) by which is meant that the former sort of government pertains to
the life of the soul, while the latter has to do with the concerns of the
present life—not only with food and clothing but with laying down laws
whereby a man may live his life among other men holily, honorably, and
temperately. For the former resides in the inner mind, while the latter
regulates only outward behavior. The one we may call the spiritual kingdom,
the other, the political kingdom. Now these two, as we have divided them,
must always be examined separately; and while one is being
considered, we must call away and turn aside the mind from thinking
about the other. There are in man, so to speak, two worlds, over which
different kings and different laws have authority. Through this distinction
it comes about that we are not to misapply to the political order the gospel
teaching on spiritual freedom, as if Christians were less subject, as concerns
outward government, to human laws, because their consciences have been
set free in God’s sight; as if they were released from all bodily servitude
because they are free according to the spirit. Then, because there can
be some delusion in the constitutions that seem to apply to the spiritual
kingdom, among these also we should discern what must be considered lawful,
as consonant with God’s word, and on the other hand what ought to have
no place among the godly. Of civil government we shall speak in another
place. F489Concerning church laws also I forbear to spaak for the present,
for a fuller treatment will more appropriately come in the fourth book,
where the power of the church will be discussed. F490 Let this be the conclusion
of the present discussion. The question, as I have said, is not of itself
very obscure or involved. However, it troubles many because they do not
sharply enough distinguish the outer forum, as 332 it is called, and the
forum of conscience. F491 Moreover, the difficulty is increased by the
fact that Paul enjoins obedience toward the magistrate, not only for fear
of punishment, but for conscience’ sake [<451301>Romans 13:1,5]. From
this it follows that consciences are also bound by civil laws. But
if this were so, all that we said a little while ago and are now going
to say about spiritual government would fall. To resolve this difficulty
it first behooves us to comprehend what conscience is; we must seek the
definition from the derivation of the word.
For just as when through the mind and understanding men grasp a knowledge
of things, and from this are said “to know,” this is the source of the
word “knowledge,” so also when they have a sense of divine judgment, as
a witness joined to them, which does not allow them to hide their sins
from being accused before the Judge’s tribunal, this sense is called “conscience.”
F492 For it is a certain mean between God and man, because it does not
allow man to suppress within himself what he knows, but
pursues him to the point of convicting him. This is what Paul understands
when he teaches that conscience also testifies to men, where their thought
either accuses or excuses them in God’s judgment [<450215>Romans 2:15-16].
A simple knowledge could re. side, so to speak, closed up in man. Therefore
this awareness which hales man before God’s judgment is a sort of guardian
appointed for man to note and spy out all his secrets that nothing may
remain buried in darkness. Whence that ancient proverb: “Conscience is
a thousand witnesses.” F493 For the same reason, Peter also put “the response
of a good conscience to God” [<600321>1 Peter 3:21] as equivalent to
peace of mind, when, convinced of Christ’s grace, we fearlessly present
ourselves before God. And when the author of the Letter to the Hebrews
states that we “no longer have any consciousness of
sin” [<581002>Hebrews 10:2], he means that we are held to be freed
or acquitted, so that sin may no longer accuse us.
16. BONDAGE AND FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE
Therefore, as works have regard to men, so conscience refers to God.
A good conscience, then, is nothing but inward integrity of heart. In this
sense, Paul writes that the fulfillment of the law is love from a clear
conscience and sincere faith [cf. <540105>1 Timothy 1:5]. Afterward,
also, in the same chapter, he shows how much it differs from understanding,
333 stating that “certain persons made shipwreck of their faith” [<540119>1
Timothy 1:19] because they had forsaken good conscience. By these
words he signifies a lively inclination to serve God and a sincere
effort to live piously and holily. Sometimes, indeed, it is also extended
to men, as when the same Paul, according to Luke, declares that he “took
pains” to walk “with a clear conscience toward God and men” [<442416>Acts
24:16]. But this was said because the fruit of a good conscience flows
forth and comes even to men. But properly speaking, as I have already said,
it has respect to God alone. Hence it comes about that a law is said to
bind the conscience when it simply binds a man without regard to other
men, or without taking them into account. For example: God not only bids
us keep our minds pure and undefiled from all lust but also forbids all
obscenity of speech and outward licentiousness. My conscience is subject
to the observance of this law, even if no man lived on earth. So he who
conducts himself intemperately not only sins because he gives a bad example
to his brothers but has a conscience bound by guilt before God. In things
of themselves indifferent there is another consideration. For we ought
to abstain from anything that might cause offense, but with a free conscience.
Thus Paul speaks concerning meat consecrated to idols. “If anyone,” he
says, “raises a scruple, do not touch it, for conscience’ sake. Now I mean
the other man’s conscience—not yours.” [<461028>1
Corinthians 10:28-29 p.] F494 A believer who, though previously warned,
nonetheless ate meat of this sort would sin. But however necessary it may
be with respect to his brother for him to abstain from it, as God enjoins,
he still does not cease to keep freedom of conscience. We see how this
law, while binding outward actions, leaves the conscience free.
more reading...
Persecution:Every
Christian's Lot by George Whitefield
Back to
top
International Center For Religion and Diplomacy
One of their partners-Moral Re-Armament says:
"During this period, people of Christian background made up the majority of those working with MRA. But as it expanded, they increasingly found themselves working in partnership with Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists, who found in MRA a common ground. As early as 1915, Buchman had visited India and met Mahatma Gandhi, with whom he subsequently formed a friendship based on their shared belief in moral and spiritual values. He never saw difference of religion as a barrier to cooperation and, while declaring freely the source of his own faith, strove to express his message in terms that were universally comprehensible. Over the years, an increasing number of people of different religions have made MRA's work their own, alongside their Christian colleagues....
"A shared vision
"Frank Buchman's vision, which is still that of MRA today, could be summed up as 'God's will be done on earth'. As a Christian, I am reminded of the Lord's Prayer. Though each would express it in their own way, it is a vision that is shared by Jews, Muslims, Hindus and those of other faith traditions - as well as pointing towards fundamental human values which non-believers can accept.
"Since Buchman's time, and increasingly today, MRA is finding it possible for people of different faiths to work together as equal partners in unselfconscious cooperation for this common vision.
"This unity will not be built on all holding precisely the same beliefs. Nor can it be based on pretending that each other's beliefs do not matter. By focusing on what needs to be undertaken together, while continually deepening our roots in our own religion, we will find the way to live and work as one."
International Center For Religion and Diplomacy quotes NOT God's Word but a false prophet...
Quoting the Qur'an
http://www.icrd.org/intellectualbasis.html
O Mankind!. . . we made you into nations and tribes that you may
know and cooperate with one another.
--Qur'an 49:13
http://www.icrd.org/criticalneed.html
"International Center For Religion and Diplomacy-A
Critical Need
"Regardless of one’s spiritual persuasion, there are two compelling
reasons why this initiative is important: (1) the need for more effective
preventive measures to minimize the occasions in which we have to send
our sons and daughters in harm’s way and (2) the need for a stable global
environment to support continued economic growth that can benefit an expanding
percentage of the world's population. In linking religious reconciliation
with official diplomacy, the ICRD is creating a new synergy for peace-making
that will serve these needs."
"International Center For Religion and Diplomacy-Approach
http://www.icrd.org/approach.html
The Center accomplishes its mission by:
• serving as a bridge between politics and religion in support
of peacemaking,
• deploying multi-skilled, inter-religious action teams
to address actual or incipient conflicts,
• training religious clergy and laity in the tasks of peacemaking,
and
• providing feedback to theologians and clergy concerning
interpretations of their teachings that are contributing to strife and
misunderstanding."
http://www.icrd.org/partners.html
World Vision
Robert Seiple
-Former US Ambassador-at-large for International Religious Freedom
-Former President, World Vision
David A. Vander Mey
-Worked for Christian organization "Youth for Christ."
-President of "The Quantum Group."
Prison Fellowship International
Ronald Nikkel
-President/CEO, Prison Fellowship International
-Leading advocate of restorative justice
Fuller Theological Seminary
Richard Mouw
-President, Fuller Theological Seminary
-Noted author/lecturer on philosophy & religion
William Brehm
-Founder /Chairman, SRA Int’l., Inc.
-Former Chairman, Fuller Theological Seminary
We are the tolerant society. Nothing much angers us any more. Nothing, that is, except someone who is not as tolerant as we are! We can tolerate anything except the person who won't tolerate anything! No wonder our favorite Bible verse is Matthew 7:1, "Judge not that ye be not judged."
The new "unpardonable sin" is "judging." What a blessing this "new commandment" is to "Easy Christianity." Hypocrites can flaunt their violations of the Word of God and yet parade unchallenged as Christians. No one dares call them hypocrites for ("Oh, Horrors!") that would be "judging them."
Tell anyone nowadays that he or someone else is doing wrong and you will be immediately rebuked, "Don't Judge!" Is such a use of this verse proper? It clearly is not.
It can't mean that we must give up all spiritual discernment in order to be "loving Christians." Five verses later Jesus says, "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine" (Matthew 7:6). This command assumes the exercise of spiritual discernment. A few verses later Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets...You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:15,16,20). Again Jesus demands spiritual discernment. In Jesus' view it is not "judging" to conclude that someone is a false prophet.
Is it, perhaps, our duty to keep such discerning conclusions to ourselves in order to avoid "judging"? Emphatically not! Matthew 7:1 does not teach that it is sinful to confront and, if necessary, publicly expose evil. If this were so, how could Jesus say, "And if you brother sins, go and reprove him...?" How could Jesus go on to say, "And if he refuses to listen...tell it to the church"? (Matthew 18:15,17). How could Jesus' apostle, Paul, say, "Do you not judge those who are within the church?...Remove the wicked man from among yourselves" (1 Corinthians 5:12,13).
Matthew 7:1 does not forbid us either to form or express our opinions about such hypocrites. Jesus expressed such an opinion in this very passage. In Matthew 7:5 He said, "You hypocrite." John the Baptist expressed his opinion of the Pharisees publicly to their faces, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Matthew 3:7). We must do the same. Jesus in this very chapter (Matthew 7:15,16,20) commanded, "Beware of false prophets...you will know them by their fruits."
It's time for Christians to stop being bound by such false interpretation and to start dealing with sin. "Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive with them" (Proverbs 28:4)
So what does Matthew 7:1 mean? In this context, Jesus is forbidding forming or expressing conclusions about others by those who won't see or deal with their own sins. Matthew 7:3-5 says, "And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?...You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
If, on the basis of Matthew 7:1, you refuse to form and express (when necessary) moral opinions, you are confessing your refusal to see and deal with your own sins. The refusal to exercise moral discernment is a confession of moral bankruptcy! May God embolden you to stop tolerating sin in yourself and others, to your hurt and to theirs!
•Powered
by Netmind •
You may
search by Topics, Authors, and Names