What are your thoughts on Mother Teresa?

[BlackSabb]

I ask this because she was not it appears, a fundamentalist Christian. Here is something I've copied and pasted from a website, and this is certainly not the only website to say this. There are many that same the same things about Mother Teresa, validating that this is indeed true. But I'll give you this particular website URL too:


- Other notable quotes from "Mother" Teresa (12/4/89, Time magazine, pp. 11,13): (All emphases added):
(a) "The dying, the crippled, the mentally ill, the unwanted, the unloved -- they are Jesus in disguise. ... [through the] poor people I have an opportunity to be 24 hours a day with Jesus." [On another occasion, she again demonstrated her pantheistic religious philosophy: "Every AIDS victim is Jesus in a pitiful disguise; Jesus is in everyone.. ... [AIDS sufferers are] children of God [who] have been created for greater things" (1/13/86, Time).]
(b) "You must make them feel loved and wanted. They are Jesus for me."
(c) "I love all religions. ... If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there." [On another occasion, she again demonstrated her false gospel that 'there are many ways to God': "All is God -- Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., all have access to the same God."]

-------------------------------------------------------------------
- In her book, Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations, and Prayers, "Mother" Teresa says on pp. 81-82:
"We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God's presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men -- simply better -- we will be satisfied. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life -- his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the website of this particular article: As I said, many websites say the same thing:


http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/teresa/general.htm


Opinions?

[HappyChicken]

The only thing I really know about Mother Theresa is that her and I share the same birth date...along with Pee Wee Herman.

[edb19]

just for curiosity's sake - why are you asking this question in the Baptist forum? We're obviously going to have doctrinal differences with her beliefs and practices.

[smorrison]

I think Mother Teresa was a great woman. While I don't agree with everything she ever said, I do love her heart for the poor and oppressed. The fact that she was willing to step out and work with the sick and dying, and she loved it, amazes me. Our mission as Christians, of any denomination or background, is to love others as Christ loved others. Yes we are called to lead them to Christ, but first we must love them, so that they can see Christ. Just my thoughts one Mother Teresa.

[arunma]

Mother Teresa's comments about the poor being Christ in disguise can perhaps be excused, since they are based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' parable about the sheep and the goats. She did, however, believe in a multitude of other doctrines which more clearly run contrary to Scripture. She was a part of the apostate Roman Catholic Church, and according to the quotes that have been provided, she believed that people of false religions could be saved. So what are my thoughts on Mother Teresa? She's a great woman to be sure, along with people like Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. All of these were people who accomplished great works and to whom society owes a great debt. They were also non-Christians who were condemned to hell unless they repented of their unbelief before their deaths. Being a good person never saved anyone. Only faith in Christ, who justifies sinners, delivers souls out of hell.

I think Mother Teresa was a great woman. While I don't agree with everything she ever said, I do love her heart for the poor and oppressed. The fact that she was willing to step out and work with the sick and dying, and she loved it, amazes me. Our mission as Christians, of any denomination or background, is to love others as Christ loved others. Yes we are called to lead them to Christ, but first we must love them, so that they can see Christ. Just my thoughts one Mother Teresa.

But I think we must also ask if Mother Teresa really showed people Christ. Christ is portrayed in a rather specific way in the Bible. If we do good to others and then teach them things that Christ would never have taught, are we really showing them Christ?

I've noticed a rather odd phenomenon among us evangelicals. There are a lot of atheists out there who are very nice people, and we never say that these people will be saved. For whatever reason, we evangelical Christians have no moral qualms about condemning an atheist to hell. After all, atheists can't possibly be moral people because they don't believe in God. Most of the time we're also quite eager to condemn the Muslims, seeing as how they're all (supposedly) terrorists. Yet somehow it's different when the person in question is a faithful Jew, Hindu, or Buddhist. All three of these religions emphasize good works, and for the most part they are relatively peaceful. We see these people give thanks to their false gods (yes, even Christ-rejecting Judaism), and excuse them on account of their good works. After all, if their false gods move them to do such good works, then maybe we can convince ourselves that God hears their misdirected prayers anyway.

This is nothing more than works-based righteousness. The moment we start convincing ourselves that a "good" non-Christian can be in communion with God as long as he is good enough, we reject the Biblical teaching that it is impossible to please God without faith. Without Jesus, humans are without any hope of salvation. Practicing Judaism faithfully, building homes for the poor, and believing in a "messiah to come" doesn't count as faith in Jesus Christ. A person who feeds orphans and goes to the temple to pray to Hindu gods isn't unknowingly directing his prayers to Christ; he is directing them to demons. One cannot worship any being other than Christ and expect that he is just before God.

But one will be quick to point out that my entire discussion thus far is moot, because I've addressed false religions, whereas Catholicism acknowledges the Lord Jesus Christ. Does it really? The god of Catholicism doesn't resemble the God of the Scriptures. Catholicism puts forth a god who justifies sinners by their works, whereas the Scriptures teach that God justifies the righteous by grace through faith, apart from works. Catholicism teaches of a Jesus who approves of false religions, places more emphasis on works than faith, and values a legalistic set of sacramental rites. It is effectively no different from a false religion, because its god is not our Lord Jesus. If we can agree that no quantity of good works will save a non-Christian, then we must also concede that a Catholic nun, no matter how outwardly righteous, cannot be saved apart from faith in Jesus Christ.

[janny108]

Lots of people actively help others and it's too bad that more Christians that really do know the Lord are apt to do it less.
To show the love of Jesus to the poor or to anyone, that person has to know Him first.
Jan

[smorrison]

arunma,

I probably read way to deeply into your post, but what I got out of that is that you think I"m saying that Mother Teresa was leading people to Christ. I didn't say that, nor did I imply it. My point is that it always seems to be the non-Christians who are out there doing the work that the Christians are supposed to be doing. Whether she lead any of those people to Christ is between her and God. I have no room to say whether she did or did not. I don't agree with a lot of her theology or whatever, but I do agree with her passion to serve. The same passion that she had for the sick and poor, is the same passion that we are to have as Christians. And yes, Jan, I do agree with you when you said that to show the love of Jesus to others, one must first know Him. But even if she wasn't showing the love of Jesus, she was taking one more step that most Christians are scared to take.....she was loving others. Christians have a hard time with that. They want to look out for themselves and then help when people come to them. I can say that, because I've done that before. After reading Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne, my focus on serving others has changed drastically. I don't want to be sitting around reading stories of how non-Christians were out loving others, while we Christ followers were in our air-conditioned homes watching the big game.

Again, I'm sorry if I read into your post way too deeply. I have a tendency to do that sometimes. I agree with you in saying that she had some beliefs and such that were not like we have, but she also had a heart for others that we don't have as well. Again, sorry if I am coming off the wrong way. Not really meaning too.

[rusmeister]

Mother Teresa's comments about the poor being Christ in disguise can perhaps be excused, since they are based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' parable about the sheep and the goats.

Hi arunma! Long time, no see!

I actually agree with some of your sentiments there. I have just one serious counter-question. Who exactly determines what is correct interpretation? If she's coming from Scripture and has reasoning and theological backing (as most serious and intelligent Christians usually do, imo), it is only on the basis of your personal opinion, experience and intellect (perhaps agreed upon by certain other people) that you can assume she is misinterpreting. To what external authority outside yourself do you appeal? (A great many people of conflicting faiths claim guidance of the Holy Spirit, so let's dispense with that - what you feel internally is not valid evidence for others here.)

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Who exactly determines what is correct interpretation?

Scripture interprets scripture. That is why Jesus appealed to scripture often. Scripture is not normally that hard to understand with the guiding of the Holy Spirit. When people have conflicting views of scripture the problem is often because people bring things from outside scripture into scripture or people have their own agendas so they try to make scripture say something that it does not.

[The Unforgettable Fire]

Mother Teresa did more to help and show people the love of God than anyone here at Christian Forums. The fact that Christians would sit back in their computer chairs and judge a woman who literally spent her entire life loving the unloved makes me wonder what the heck some of you think being a Christian is.

[HappyChicken]

Mother Teresa did more to help and show people the love of God than anyone here at Christian Forums. The fact that Christians would sit back in their computer chairs and judge a woman who literally spent her entire life loving the unloved makes me wonder what the heck some of you think being a Christian is.

Noone here has "judged" her. None of us are judges. This is the baptist area of Christian forums...come on now! I'm assuming you are a Christian who is sitting back in their computer chair right now. So, where do you fit in this?

[HappyChicken]

Please ignore my last post. I'm just in a bad mood. I'm sorry Unforgetable Fire.

[The Unforgettable Fire]

Please ignore my last post. I'm just in a bad mood. I'm sorry Unforgetable Fire.Think nothing of it. That passion is quite refreshing in a thread smothered in religious doctrine and man's traditions.

[HappyChicken]

Well, I don't know much about Mother Theresa. I know she dedicated her whole life to caring for the less fortunate. Was she saved? I have no clue. I hope so. But if she is, its not because of her works done on this earth....it's because she accepted Christ as her savior. I don't know a whole lot about "doctrines" or "traditions." I just know what I have read in the Bible. Saved by faith alone. Not works. -Has nothing to do with "interpretations." It's plain as day, if you read it.

[The Unforgettable Fire]

Well, I don't know much about Mother Theresa. I know she dedicated her whole life to caring for the less fortunate. Was she saved? I have no clue. I hope so. But if she is, its not because of her works done on this earth....it's because she accepted Christ as her savior. I don't know a whole lot about "doctrines" or "traditions." I just know what I have read in the Bible. Saved by faith alone. Not works. -Has nothing to do with "interpretations." It's plain as day, if you read it.
How do you divorce the person of Christ from the character of Christ?

To recieve and embrace love, mercy, forgiveness, grace is to recieve and embrace the Spirit of Christ.

[HappyChicken]

I'm not divorcing anything. I'm not sure that I'm following you. Maybe I just need to get some sleep. lol

[The Unforgettable Fire]

I'm not divorcing anything. I'm not sure that I'm following you. Maybe I just need to get some sleep. lol

OK...nice to meet you.

[WarEagle]

While I appreciate that she wanted to seve the poor, which is a very noble goal, she belonged to a false religion and preached a false Gospel.

Essentially, all she did was to send people to Hell on a full stomach.

[The Unforgettable Fire]

While I appreciate that she wanted to seve the poor, which is a very noble goal, she belonged to a false religion and preached a false Gospel.

Essentially, all she did was to send people to Hell on a full stomach.
Yeah ...I know where you are coming from...Jesus healed people and did some good things, but he transgressed the law and was obviously not the Messiah...right?

[WarEagle]

Yeah ...I know where you are coming from...Jesus healed people and did some good things, but he transgressed the law and was obviously not the Messiah...right?

No, Jesus didn't transgress the law.

I have no idea what this has to do with what I said.

[The Unforgettable Fire]

No, Jesus didn't transgress the law.

I have no idea what this has to do with what I said.

He healed on the sabbath. That was transgression of the law.

Same thing with Mother Teresa...she did good things but she did not follow the protestant doctrine of Christianity and that is more important than being charitable...right?

[fushiarose]

While I appreciate that she wanted to seve the poor, which is a very noble goal, she belonged to a false religion and preached a false Gospel.

Essentially, all she did was to send people to Hell on a full stomach.

It is a sad day when I a great woman is bad mouth like this. send people to hell?

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

He healed on the sabbath. That was transgression of the law.

Same thing with Mother Teresa...she did good things but she did not follow the protestant doctrine of Christianity and that is more important than being charitable...right?

Heh... yeah, I don't exactly recall the bible saying what mattered was adhering to protestant doctrine. I do remember Jesus separating the sheep from the goats based on how they treated others...

[edb19]

MOD HAT ON
http://dl7.glitter-graphics.net/pub/469/469367makfzcur9b.gif (http://www.glitter-graphics.com)


A gentle reminder to stick to the OP

Along the same line, please remember that Mother Theresa is revered by many world wide so please:


Use the brain God gave you. Think before you post. Think about how your post may affect someone else.



Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one. Colossians 4:6

MOD HAT OFF

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

While I appreciate that she wanted to seve the poor, which is a very noble goal, she belonged to a false religion and preached a false Gospel.

Essentially, all she did was to send people to Hell on a full stomach.

The simple fact of the matter is, Christians worship a God of love. We show them God by our love.

She brought many to Christ- and brought all of India to respect for Christianity.

The first outsiders that were Christians in India were the British, who treated them horribly. Do you think third world countries have respect for Christianity, given what horrible things colonists did to them over the centuries, while claiming to be Christians?

I can't see how effective it would be to go to a place like that and wave a bible around telling people to convert or go to hell. Why on Earth would anyone want to believe in a God simply because to do otherwise would send them to hell? Why would they want to believe in the same faith as those that mistreated them for hundreds of years?

Mother Theresa's mission was simple- to love the people of India. I think she gave them more reason to believe than anything else one could offer.

[rusmeister]

Scripture interprets scripture. That is why Jesus appealed to scripture often. Scripture is not normally that hard to understand with the guiding of the Holy Spirit. When people have conflicting views of scripture the problem is often because people bring things from outside scripture into scripture or people have their own agendas so they try to make scripture say something that it does not.
That's tautological and is non sequitor as to why Jesus referred to Scripture. Also, I already pointed out the problem of claiming guidance of the Holy Spirit. My question remains. When there is conflict, who decides who 'brought something in from the outside'?
It looks like the individual still looks to self for that authority and hopes that they are guided by God, yet the conflicts between Protestant denominations claiming this denies that. The Holy Spirit is not divided against Itself. Who's to judge whose interpretation is right and whose is wrong?

[WarEagle]

He healed on the sabbath. That was transgression of the law.

Who does the Bible say is Lord over the Sabbath?

Same thing with Mother Teresa...she did good things but she did not follow the protestant doctrine of Christianity and that is more important than being charitable...right?

It has nothing to do with "the Protestant doctrine of Christianity". It has to do with the Gospel, as taught in the Bible, and her refusal to teach it.

Being charitable is very important, but what good does it do to take care of somebody's physical needs and then just let them slip away into Hell?

[WarEagle]

It is a sad day when I a great woman is bad mouth like this. send people to hell?

It's an even sadder day when people don't recognize the Gospel and a woman who believed that her job was to help Hindu's "become better Hindus", rather than presenting the Gospel to them is a great Christian role model.

Here are a few of Theresa's greatest hits:

“At the word of a priest, THAT LITTLE PIECE OF BREAD BECOMES THE BODY OF CHRIST, the Bread of Life. Then you give this living Bread to us, so that we too might live and become holy” (Mother Teresa, cited in Be Holy: God’s First Call to Priests Today, edited by Tom Forrest, C.Ss.R., foreword by Msgr. John Magee, South Bend, Indiana: Greenlawn Press, 1987, p. 108).

“I was so struck with the thought that ONLY WHEN THE PRIEST IS THERE CAN WE HAVE OUR ALTAR AND OUR TABERNACLE AND OUR JESUS. ONLY THE PRIEST CAN PUT JESUS THERE FOR US” (Mother Teresa, Be Holy, pp. 111).

“THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS YOU [PRIESTS] ARE CALLED ‘ANOTHER CHRIST’” (Mother Teresa, Be Holy, p. 112).
In her speech before the United Nations in October 1985, she said, “No color, no religion, no nationality should come between us--we are all children of God. ... When we destroy an unborn child, we destroy God” (Christian News, Nov. 11, 1985, p. 17).

Mother Teresa called AIDS sufferers “children of God” and said, “Each one of them is Jesus in a distressing disguise” (Time, Jan. 13, 1986).

In the biography Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work, she is quoted by Desmond Doig as follows: “If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we ... become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are ... What God is in your mind you must accept.”

The April 7-13, 1990, issue of Radio Times told the story of Mother Teresa sheltering an old Hindu priest. “She nursed him with her own hands and helped him to die reconciled with his own gods.”

When Mother Teresa died, her longtime friend and biographer Naveen Chawla said that he once asked her bluntly, “Do you convert?” She replied, “Of course I convert. I convert you to be a better Hindu or a better Muslim or a better Protestant. Once you’ve found God, it’s up to you to decide how to worship him” (“Mother Teresa Touched other Faiths,” Associated Press, Sept. 7, 1997).

So clearly, this woman was no Christian and did not preach the Gospel faithfully.

[WarEagle]

The simple fact of the matter is, Christians worship a God of love. We show them God by our love.

That's not what the Bible says. While God is a God of love, for the sinner, He is also a God of judgement and wrath and the only way for the sinner to assuage God's wrath is to be reconciled to God through Christ and His atonement on the cross.

We don't show them God by our love, important as our love for them may be. We show them God by showing them Christ through the preaching of the Gospel.

She brought many to Christ- and brought all of India to respect for Christianity.

Well then, first of all, how do you explain the quotes I cited above, which go directly against the Gospel?


Second, do you have any examples of her preaching the Gospel?

Third, if she brought such "All of India to respect for Christianity" then why are so many Christians in India now being martyred for their faith in Christ?

The first outsiders that were Christians in India were the British, who treated them horribly. Do you think third world countries have respect for Christianity, given what horrible things colonists did to them over the centuries, while claiming to be Christians?

If she claimed to be a Christian, then she was not called to be a political ambassador for another country. She was called to preach the Gospel.

I can't see how effective it would be to go to a place like that and wave a bible around telling people to convert or go to hell. Why on Earth would anyone want to believe in a God simply because to do otherwise would send them to hell? Why would they want to believe in the same faith as those that mistreated them for hundreds of years?

Because it's not about simply "believing in God". It's about men being saved by the preaching of the Gospel.

The Gospel stands on it's own. When the Gospel is preached, men are convicted.

Mother Theresa's mission was simple- to love the people of India. I think she gave them more reason to believe than anything else one could offer.

"Believe" in what? Simply believing in God doesn't mean anything. The Bible says in the book of James that even the Devil and his angels "believe" in God.

If she loved them so much, then she would not have been content to keep her mouth shut about the Gospel while they went to Hell.

[ImmersionX]

Mother Teresa lived the Gospel....nuff said. It's amazing how many people are so quick to condemn a soul to hell.
Even TBN of all places honored her memory by playing the movie of her life quite a few times in the past.
All the "Catholic" bashing is really uncalled for, and it shows some people's fundamentalist mentality. I was born and raised Catholic, left the church due to one simple fact....it's government and all of the "addons" in dogma and rule and doctrine.
Yet I still believe that the RCC get's the gist of the Gospels.
Mother Teresa was a woman of tremendous FAITH in the Lord Jesus Christ. Anyone who denies this fact, needs to do some more research. Don't judge a book by it's cover.

Peace.

[WarEagle]

Mother Teresa lived the Gospel....nuff said.

Then how do you reconcile that with her statements above?

Is there any example of her ever preaching the Gospel to the lost?

It's amazing how many people are so quick to condemn a soul to hell.
Even TBN of all places honored her memory by playing the movie of her life quite a few times in the past.

I don't know if that's such a great endorsement. The folks at TBN are even more heretical than Theresa was.

All the "Catholic" bashing is really uncalled for, and it shows some people's fundamentalist mentality.

Thank you. I, for one, am happy to be a fundamentalist.

Yet I still believe that the RCC get's the gist of the Gospels.

Really? Do you have any examples of the Gospel being preached in Roman Catholicism? Why is it, then, that, anytime I ask a Roman Catholic to explain the Gospel to me, they don't know what it is?

Mother Teresa was a woman of tremendous FAITH in the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, how do you reconcile that with statements like:


Lord, my God, who am I that You should forsake me? The Child of your Love — and now become as the most hated one — the one — You have thrown away as unwanted — unloved. I call, I cling, I want — and there is no One to answer — no One on Whom I can cling — no, No One. — Alone ... Where is my Faith — even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness — My God — how painful is this unknown pain — I have no Faith — I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart — & make me suffer untold agony.
So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them — because of the blasphemy — If there be God — please forgive me — When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven — there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. — I am told God loves me — and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart? [from the book, "Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light" (Doubleday), as reprinted in Time magazine, 23 August 2007]




This is "termendous faith in the Lord Jesus Christ"???

Anyone who denies this fact, needs to do some more research. Don't judge a book by it's cover.

Actually, I did do the research. I looked into it and came up with a dozen quotes that show that she did not know the Gospel.

Perhaps you'd like to show us the results of your research.

[ImmersionX]

Wareagle, I refuse to argue with someone that proof-texts a book. Say whatever you like, be a judge as you are....very unchristian to say the least.

Really? Do you have any examples of the Gospel being preached in Roman Catholicism? Why is it, then, that, anytime I ask a Roman Catholic to explain the Gospel to me, they don't know what it is?

ROTFL are you talking in general???? Again I am not going to debase myself.


Peace.

[WarEagle]

Wareagle, I refuse to argue with someone that proof-texts a book.

OK. How is it "prooftexting"?

Say whatever you like, be a judge as you are....very unchristian to say the least.

How am I being "Unchristian"?

ROTFL are you talking in general???? Again I am not going to debase myself.

In other words, you don't know.

[ImmersionX]

Wareagle, you originally posted the following:



Originally Posted by Theresa
Lord, my God, who am I that You should forsake me? The Child of your Love — and now become as the most hated one — the one — You have thrown away as unwanted — unloved. I call, I cling, I want — and there is no One to answer — no One on Whom I can cling — no, No One. — Alone ... Where is my Faith — even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness — My God — how painful is this unknown pain — I have no Faith — I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart — & make me suffer untold agony.
So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them — because of the blasphemy — If there be God — please forgive me — When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven — there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. — I am told God loves me — and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart? [from the book, "Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light" (Doubleday), as reprinted in Time magazine, 23 August 2007]
This is "termendous faith in the Lord Jesus Christ"???



This is a fine example of taking something and using it for a false point. Yes she has faith! All this shows is that she is a human being, with doubts and fear at times.

Also, get off your highhorse, back up from the computer, and instead of condeming people to hell in your mind, go practice your faith. OH wait....don't do that, heaven forbid, good works are gonna take you to hell. :doh:
How can spreading the Gospel of Love as she did throughout her missionary work not be right?

Peace and Roll Tide

[picassoui]

Why not let God worry about Mother Theresa and you worry about youre own soul and preaching the gospel to others ..

[ImmersionX]

I agree, but I refuse to sit back and let people just say she's going to hell due to being Catholic. I refuse to sit back and let people spout off rubbish in lite of the proof of her life here on earth and what she stood in faith and love of God.

Peace and God Bless.

[WarEagle]

This is a fine example of taking something and using it for a false point.

How is this a false point? If it's a false point, then why do you go on to acknowledge that the "false point" I was making is true?

Also, get off your highhorse, back up from the computer, and instead of condeming people to hell in your mind, go practice your faith.

I'm not on a high horse and I haven't condemned anybody to Hell. Not only would I not do that, I don't have the authority to do that, anyway.

OH wait....don't do that, heaven forbid, good works are gonna take you to hell.

Really? If this is true, then why does the Bible say that people go to Hell for punishment for their sins?

How can spreading the Gospel of Love as she did throughout her missionary work not be right?

Two things:

First, could you please look at the quotes I cited a few posts ago and explain how you reconcile them with your claim that she "spread the Gospel"?

Second, do you have any examples at all of her presenting the Gospel to the lost?

Peace and Roll Tide

6-0, baby. 6-0. We own you.

[ImmersionX]

This isn't a debate for me here. I will agree to disagree if you will.

Also, my wife agrees with you on what team is best! :doh::D

[WarEagle]

This isn't a debate for me here. I will agree to disagree if you will.

Her words speak for themselves and the absence of any examples of her having presented the Gospel to the lost also speaks for itself.

Also, my wife agrees with you on what team is best! :doh::D

Your wife is right. Even Notre Dame is laughing at you.

[ImmersionX]

Wow you are one righteous person to point that out.(both points)

[rusmeister]

Why not let God worry about Mother Theresa and you worry about youre own soul and preaching the gospel to others ..
Amen, amen, amen!

There's nothing you can do to change others' views, immersion. All you can do (if you're lucky) is to make them think.

My previous post was talking about a reason I could never be a Baptist again, btw.

[WarEagle]

Wow you are one righteous person to point that out.(both points)

Doesn't take a righteous person. Just takes a person who reads the Bible and one who knows football.

[ImmersionX]

She's probably just in Purgatory then!


























JUST KIDDING!!!!!!:P

[TimRout]

There can be little doubt that Mother Theresa was a wonderful person who did wonderful work. From what I have learned of her over the years, I am also comfortable concluding that she served with a sincere and gracious heart. Indeed, only God can fully measure the good she did through her many decades of faithful service.

That said, her assertion that Jesus is present in the poor of the world is clearly a misinterpretation of Matthew 25:40. Christians form the body of Christ. Those who bless down-and-out Christians (not merely the poor) are therefore blessing Christ. But as others have suggested, this is a relatively minor error on MT's part.

The more significant issue relates to MT's relationship with God. Given that she was a firmly committed Roman Catholic, and given that Rome denies salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, it is difficult to say with certainty that MT is saved.

[ImmersionX]

Not that I can and will agree with wholeheartedly. :thumbsup:

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

There can be little doubt that Mother Theresa was a wonderful person who did wonderful work. From what I have learned of her over the years, I am also comfortable concluding that she served with a sincere and gracious heart. Indeed, only God can fully measure the good she did through her many decades of faithful service.

That said, her assertion that Jesus is present in the poor of the world is clearly a misinterpretation of Matthew 25:40. Christians form the body of Christ. Those who bless down-and-out Christians (not merely the poor) are therefore blessing Christ. But as others have suggested, this is a relatively minor error on MT's part.

The more significant issue relates to MT's relationship with God. Given that she was a firmly committed Roman Catholic, and given that Rome denies salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, it is difficult to say with certainty that MT is saved.


If you are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, then how on Earth is your salvation jeopardized by not believing that particular doctrine?

You do realize you have what seems to be a logical contradiction?

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

That's not what the Bible says. While God is a God of love, for the sinner, He is also a God of judgement and wrath and the only way for the sinner to assuage God's wrath is to be reconciled to God through Christ and His atonement on the cross.

We don't show them God by our love, important as our love for them may be. We show them God by showing them Christ through the preaching of the Gospel.

Where does the bible say that God is wrath?

Well then, first of all, how do you explain the quotes I cited above, which go directly against the Gospel?

I don't see anything that goes against the Gospel.

Second, do you have any examples of her preaching the Gospel?

Yes, everything she did preached the Gospel.
One preaches the Gospel through love. If you think preaching the Gospel is standing on a street corner shouting passages from the bible, you are going to be wasting your time.

Third, if she brought such "All of India to respect for Christianity" then why are so many Christians in India now being martyred for their faith in Christ?

Because of fanatical Muslims- who believe in a God of wrath and judgment.

]Because it's not about simply "believing in God". It's about men being saved by the preaching of the Gospel.

Which is what she did.
Unfortunately you seem to think the only way to preach the Gospel is to recite passages from the bible and give your own opinions to others regarding salvation.

The Gospel stands on it's own. When the Gospel is preached, men are convicted.

Really, how many people have you converted?

"Believe" in what? Simply believing in God doesn't mean anything. The Bible says in the book of James that even the Devil and his angels "believe" in God.

If she loved them so much, then she would not have been content to keep her mouth shut about the Gospel while they went to Hell.

Believe in Christianity.
I guess I'm a little confused by your post- does God judge the salvation of others or do you? Because you seem to be making a lot of judgments.

[WarEagle]

Where does the bible say that God is wrath?

John 3:36
Romans 1:18
Romans 2:5
Romans 2:8
Romans 5:9
Romans 9:22
Eph. 5:6
Col 3:6
1 Thess 1:10
1 Thess 2:16
Rev 6:16
Rev 6:17
Rev 14:10
Rev 14:19
Rev 15:1
Rev 15:7
Rev 16:1
Rev 16:19
Rev 19:15
And that's just the New Testament. There are about 100 more in the Old Testament.

I don't see anything that goes against the Gospel.

The Gospel teaches that it is only by repentance and faith in Christ and His atonement on the cross that we are saved.

By teaching that people can be saved by being better members of a false religion and relying on the rituals of that religion, she is contradicting the Gospel.

Yes, everything she did preached the Gospel.

Then you should have no problem giving an example.

One preaches the Gospel through love. If you think preaching the Gospel is standing on a street corner shouting passages from the bible, you are going to be wasting your time.

I disagree. We see examples of open air preaching all throughout the scriptures, most obviously Peter's sermon in Acts.

I'm assuming that by "through love" you mean doing good deeds. Could you please show me any verse in the Bible that says this is how the Gospel is presented? Because the only model of presenting the Gospel in the Bible is by the preaching and proclaimation of the word of God.

Because of fanatical Muslims- who believe in a God of wrath and judgment.

First of all, they're Hindus, who do not believe in God or His judgement, not Muslims.

Second, the fact that it's happening at all, not to mention in such large numbers, shows that the claim that is false.

Which is what she did.

Then why can't anybody give an example of her doing it?

Unfortunately you seem to think the only way to preach the Gospel is to recite passages from the bible and give your own opinions to others regarding salvation.

I go by the Biblical model, which is proclaiming the word of God.

A very clear example of this would be the Ethiopian eunuch. When he wanted to be saved, what did he do? He went to Phillip and asked him to go through the scriptures with him and explain the Gospel to him.

Likewise, look at the example I provided before, of Peter's sermon in the book of Acts. He stood in the street and boldly proclaimed the word of God and 3,000 people were saved.

Really, how many people have you converted?

Interesting question.

First of all, I haven't converted anybody. That's not my job. The Bible says that my job is to preach the Gospel and it's the Holy Spirit's job to convert people.

Second, I really don't know how many have come to Christ as a result of my preaching because it isn't a competition and I don't keep score.

Third, how many I've converted is irrelevant.

Our preaching isn't judged by how many people are converted as a result, but whether or not it's faithful to the Gospel.

I would rather win one lost person to Christ through the faithful preaching of the Gospel, than to win 1,000 false converts through preaching a false gospel.

I guess I'm a little confused by your post- does God judge the salvation of others or do you? Because you seem to be making a lot of judgments.

You seem to be confusing judging somebody and proclaiming God's judgement. While it is up to God alone to judge the individual, there are three things that we can judge.

First, we know that all people who die without being born again will go to Hell.

Second, Jesus told us that we can know who is saved and who is not by examining their behavior.

For instance, if they bear bad fruit, then we know that they're not saved. If they keep on living a lifestyle of service to sin, then the Bible declares that they're not saved.

Third, according to passages such as 2 John, if somebody holds heretical doctrines, then they're not saved.

So, while I cannot and do not judge them, I will point out what the Bible says about people who follow in this pattern.

[FreeinChrist]

I ask this because she was not it appears, a fundamentalist Christian. Here is something I've copied and pasted from a website, and this is certainly not the only website to say this. There are many that same the same things about Mother Teresa, validating that this is indeed true. But I'll give you this particular website URL too:


- Other notable quotes from "Mother" Teresa (12/4/89, Time magazine, pp. 11,13): (All emphases added):
(a) "The dying, the crippled, the mentally ill, the unwanted, the unloved -- they are Jesus in disguise. ... [through the] poor people I have an opportunity to be 24 hours a day with Jesus." [On another occasion, she again demonstrated her pantheistic religious philosophy: "Every AIDS victim is Jesus in a pitiful disguise; Jesus is in everyone.. ... [AIDS sufferers are] children of God [who] have been created for greater things" (1/13/86, Time).]
(b) "You must make them feel loved and wanted. They are Jesus for me."
(c) "I love all religions. ... If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there." [On another occasion, she again demonstrated her false gospel that 'there are many ways to God': "All is God -- Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., all have access to the same God."]

-------------------------------------------------------------------


I hate quotes taken out of context.
she was probably referring to this:

Matt 25:34 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
Mat 25:35 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) 'For I was hungry, and you gave Me {something} to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me {something} to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;
Mat 25:36 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'
Mat 25:37 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) "Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You {something} to drink?
Mat 25:38 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) 'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?
Mat 25:39 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) 'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'
Mat 25:40 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) "The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, {even} the least {of them,} you did it to Me.'
Mat 25:41 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
Mat 25:42 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) for I was hungry, and you gave Me {nothing} to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;

Mat 25:43 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'
Mat 25:44 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) "Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'
Mat 25:45 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) "Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'


I would add that the AIDS victim may be an angel, or that derelict down the street is one. What is that scripture about entertaining angels unaware?

Hbr 13:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=13&version=nas#) Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.

[Ravenonthecross]

I hate quotes taken out of context.
she was probably referring to this:

Matt 25:34 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
Mat 25:35 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) 'For I was hungry, and you gave Me {something} to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me {something} to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;
Mat 25:36 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'
Mat 25:37 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) "Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You {something} to drink?
Mat 25:38 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) 'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?
Mat 25:39 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) 'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'
Mat 25:40 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) "The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, {even} the least {of them,} you did it to Me.'
Mat 25:41 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
Mat 25:42 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) for I was hungry, and you gave Me {nothing} to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;

Mat 25:43 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'
Mat 25:44 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) "Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'
Mat 25:45 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) "Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'


I would add that the AIDS victim may be an angel, or that derelict down the street is one. What is that scripture about entertaining angels unaware?

Hbr 13:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=13&version=nas#) Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.
Thank you for putting her living the gospel into its proper scriptural perspective.

God bless thee.

:prayer::Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.:crossrc:

[arunma]

If you are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, then how on Earth is your salvation jeopardized by not believing that particular doctrine?

You do realize you have what seems to be a logical contradiction?

I don't see it either. I think the problem here is that you're viewing salvation by grace through faith as some sort of intellectual doctrine. One is not saved by intellectual assent, but by faith in Jesus Christ. That is to say, one must trust his grace and mercy, and not rest on works. The apostate Catholic Church believes in salvation by works. If Mother Teresa held to Catholic doctrine, she would have trusted in her works to save her. This is why we say that we cannot say with certainty that she was saved. Ultimately I don't know what she believed. But I can say that if she did not trust solely in Christ (i.e. if she believed in apostate Catholicism), then she would not be saved.

[rusmeister]

The apostate Catholic Church believes in salvation by works. If Mother Teresa held to Catholic doctrine, she would have trusted in her works to save her.
This is not true in the way you seem to understand it. I'm not Catholic, but false Baptist teachings on Catholics are one of the things that make me doubt their understandings of anybody else's teachings. Jack Chick does more damage through incorrect/false explanation than he knows. It works as propaganda with people who never go to the horse's mouth, but when people learn that what you understand is not what they mean they will cease to believe what you say, as I did.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches teach what you read in the Bible, that we are indeed saved by grace through faith, that it is the gift of God. However, a living faith will produce works. If it does not, it is dead, and pretty meaningless. God is the judge, not we, so we would agree with some of the things you've said. But Catholics and Orthodox do NOT trust in their works to save them - it is the gift of God. The line where you would disagree is more one that your salvation is a process rather than a completed event and it ain't over till the fat lady sings, so we have to continue, every moment, to reject sin and choose Christ. All of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags and we don't save ourselves, but God still expects us to do the best we can to please Him through our works. Both Paul and James are right, not just one or the other.

Arunma, I thought that hanging around TAW you would've picked that up.

[WarEagle]

But Catholics and Orthodox do NOT trust in their works to save them

Actually, if you ask most Roman Catholics, they'll say that they're born again by having somebody sprinkle water on their head as a baby. That's trusting in works.

They'll also say that salvation is dependant on one's membership in the Catholic church (ex ecclesia nulla salas). That's a work.

[LovebirdsFlying]

If you hadn't said this, I would have. Good job. QFT.I hate quotes taken out of context.
she was probably referring to this:

Matt 25:34 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
Mat 25:35 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) 'For I was hungry, and you gave Me {something} to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me {something} to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;
Mat 25:36 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'
Mat 25:37 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) "Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You {something} to drink?
Mat 25:38 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) 'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?
Mat 25:39 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) 'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'
Mat 25:40 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) "The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, {even} the least {of them,} you did it to Me.'
Mat 25:41 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
Mat 25:42 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) for I was hungry, and you gave Me {nothing} to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;

Mat 25:43 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'
Mat 25:44 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) "Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'
Mat 25:45 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=25&version=nas#) "Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'


I would add that the AIDS victim may be an angel, or that derelict down the street is one. What is that scripture about entertaining angels unaware?

Hbr 13:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=13&version=nas#) Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.

[HappyChicken]

This is not true in the way you seem to understand it. I'm not Catholic, but false Baptist teachings on Catholics are one of the things that make me doubt their understandings of anybody else's teachings. Jack Chick does more damage through incorrect/false explanation than he knows. It works as propaganda with people who never go to the horse's mouth, but when people learn that what you understand is not what they mean they will cease to believe what you say, as I did.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches teach what you read in the Bible, that we are indeed saved by grace through faith, that it is the gift of God. However, a living faith will produce works. If it does not, it is dead, and pretty meaningless. God is the judge, not we, so we would agree with some of the things you've said. But Catholics and Orthodox do NOT trust in their works to save them - it is the gift of God. The line where you would disagree is more one that your salvation is a process rather than a completed event and it ain't over till the fat lady sings, so we have to continue, every moment, to reject sin and choose Christ. All of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags and we don't save ourselves, but God still expects us to do the best we can to please Him through our works. Both Paul and James are right, not just one or the other.

Arunma, I thought that hanging around TAW you would've picked that up.

So, are you saying that you can lose your salvation??? If its not over till the fat lady sings and salvation is a process?? You don't believe that once your saved, your always saved??

[arunma]

This is not true in the way you seem to understand it. I'm not Catholic, but false Baptist teachings on Catholics are one of the things that make me doubt their understandings of anybody else's teachings. Jack Chick does more damage through incorrect/false explanation than he knows. It works as propaganda with people who never go to the horse's mouth, but when people learn that what you understand is not what they mean they will cease to believe what you say, as I did.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches teach what you read in the Bible, that we are indeed saved by grace through faith, that it is the gift of God. However, a living faith will produce works. If it does not, it is dead, and pretty meaningless. God is the judge, not we, so we would agree with some of the things you've said. But Catholics and Orthodox do NOT trust in their works to save them - it is the gift of God. The line where you would disagree is more one that your salvation is a process rather than a completed event and it ain't over till the fat lady sings, so we have to continue, every moment, to reject sin and choose Christ. All of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags and we don't save ourselves, but God still expects us to do the best we can to please Him through our works. Both Paul and James are right, not just one or the other.

Arunma, I thought that hanging around TAW you would've picked that up.


Hi Rusmeister. There are a couple issues I hope to address. First, evangelical Christians would fully agree that both Paul and James are correct; we do not believe that the Bible can contradict itself. Now as to the issue of the process of salvation, Reformed Christians hold to a specific order of salvation which includes several events. Though we believe that justification is a one time act, we believe that sanctification is a lifelong process. This is not some arcane academic debate. If I cease to be justified before God when I sin, then I have no hope of salvation, since I am terribly and habitually sinful. I have spoken to Roman Catholics about this. A Catholic once explained to me that both baptism and confession to a priest cleanse him of his sin, but he loses his holiness when he falls back into sin. If I play a part in my own justification, then it isn't grace.

Finally, I understand that you will likely agree with little of what I've said. After all, to even that Mother Teresa wasn't a true believer in Christ is very offensive. This is why I've tried to be clear in saying that I believe her to be a very good person who did many great works. But ultimately, this isn't about Mother Teresa. I don't know her mind or heart, and since I find it difficult to understand her beliefs from what she said, I don't know if she belonged to Christ or not. What I do know is that no person can be saved by any amount of good works, but only by faith in Jesus Christ. What I am opposing is the doctrine that righteous non-Christians can be saved.

[fushiarose]

It's an even sadder day when people don't recognize the Gospel and a woman who believed that her job was to help Hindu's "become better Hindus", rather than presenting the Gospel to them is a great Christian role model.

Here are a few of Theresa's greatest hits:



So clearly, this woman was no Christian and did not preach the Gospel faithfully.
Only Jesus can judge for sure if she was one of His Children. You are not Jesus. Therefore, you can not judge if she was really a Christian or not.
I think she had the idea that she would take care of people's needs and help feed them. She hoped they would come to Christ. If they did not convert to Christianity, she would still feed and help them.
Why do you hate Mother Theresa?
I believe her to be a Christian. You seem like an angry person.

[WarEagle]

Only Jesus can judge for sure if she was one of His Children. You are not Jesus. Therefore, you can not judge if she was really a Christian or not.

It would have been pretty silly of Jesus to tell us to beware of wolves if we had no way to tell who the wolves are, wouldn't it?

I think she had the idea that she would take care of people's needs and help feed them. She hoped they would come to Christ. If they did not convert to Christianity, she would still feed and help them.

And how did she expect them to come to Christ if she didn't preach the Gospel to them.

Why do you hate Mother Theresa?

What a silly thing to say.

You seem like an angry person.

No, I'm not angry. I'm just disappointed that there are so many people on a Baptist forum who don't show any discernment and have to fall back on silly ad homs and straw men like "Why do you hate Mother Theresa".

[TimRout]

If you are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, then how on Earth is your salvation jeopardized by not believing that particular doctrine?

You do realize you have what seems to be a logical contradiction?I see your point. Now try to understand mine....

If Mother Theresa espoused the RC view that salvation is a product of accumulated grace (through the sacraments) and personal merit (through lifelong obedience), then her faith did not rest in Christ alone to save her, and she would thus be unsaved. If one believes that salvation is by grace, through faith, plus (fill in the blank), then one is NOT a genuine disciple of Christ.

[Izdaari]

This is not true in the way you seem to understand it. I'm not Catholic, but false Baptist teachings on Catholics are one of the things that make me doubt their understandings of anybody else's teachings. Jack Chick does more damage through incorrect/false explanation than he knows. It works as propaganda with people who never go to the horse's mouth, but when people learn that what you understand is not what they mean they will cease to believe what you say, as I did.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches teach what you read in the Bible, that we are indeed saved by grace through faith, that it is the gift of God. However, a living faith will produce works. If it does not, it is dead, and pretty meaningless. God is the judge, not we, so we would agree with some of the things you've said. But Catholics and Orthodox do NOT trust in their works to save them - it is the gift of God. The line where you would disagree is more one that your salvation is a process rather than a completed event and it ain't over till the fat lady sings, so we have to continue, every moment, to reject sin and choose Christ. All of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags and we don't save ourselves, but God still expects us to do the best we can to please Him through our works. Both Paul and James are right, not just one or the other.

Arunma, I thought that hanging around TAW you would've picked that up.
So true! :amen:

Actually, if you ask most Roman Catholics, they'll say that they're born again by having somebody sprinkle water on their head as a baby. That's trusting in works.

They'll also say that salvation is dependant on one's membership in the Catholic church (ex ecclesia nulla salas). That's a work.
Also true. Most Catholics don't really understand their own churches' doctrine. But that's true of most Protestants as well.

[Izdaari]

This is not true in the way you seem to understand it. I'm not Catholic, but false Baptist teachings on Catholics are one of the things that make me doubt their understandings of anybody else's teachings. Jack Chick does more damage through incorrect/false explanation than he knows. It works as propaganda with people who never go to the horse's mouth, but when people learn that what you understand is not what they mean they will cease to believe what you say, as I did.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches teach what you read in the Bible, that we are indeed saved by grace through faith, that it is the gift of God. However, a living faith will produce works. If it does not, it is dead, and pretty meaningless. God is the judge, not we, so we would agree with some of the things you've said. But Catholics and Orthodox do NOT trust in their works to save them - it is the gift of God. The line where you would disagree is more one that your salvation is a process rather than a completed event and it ain't over till the fat lady sings, so we have to continue, every moment, to reject sin and choose Christ. All of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags and we don't save ourselves, but God still expects us to do the best we can to please Him through our works. Both Paul and James are right, not just one or the other.

Arunma, I thought that hanging around TAW you would've picked that up.
So true! :amen:

Actually, if you ask most Roman Catholics, they'll say that they're born again by having somebody sprinkle water on their head as a baby. That's trusting in works.

They'll also say that salvation is dependant on one's membership in the Catholic church (ex ecclesia nulla salas). That's a work.
Also true. Most Catholics don't really understand their own churches' doctrine. But that's true of most Protestants as well.

Now, as to Mother Teresa:

I don't know whether we'll meet her in heaven or not. I don't know if she accepted the actual RCC teaching, or the false popular version, or whether she believed something else altogether. I guess we'll find out when the time comes... when we met her there, or we don't. But I know she did great works of Christian charity, and that's a good thing - not a saving thing, but a good thing, for which she deserves mad props. :thumbsup:

[FreeinChrist]

I think God is going to look at the love we have for other people and that it is a very important thing. And actions show more than our words.

[rusmeister]

So, are you saying that you can lose your salvation??? If its not over till the fat lady sings and salvation is a process?? You don't believe that once your saved, your always saved??

Saying that you can "lose" your salvation implies beforehand that the process, for you, is finished; ie, that you have something to lose. It is important to distinguish between the finished work of Christ, His part in our salvation, and the part that relates to our free will - our work, if you will, being our choices, daily, to turn towards Christ and away from self. If I cannot consciously reject this gift at any later time in my life, then I do not have free will. This is determinism, and a self-contradictory form at that. Baptist theology in general says that you have free will until the moment you kneel and say the sinner's prayer, and that you are deprived of this free will thereafter (ie, you can't lose your salvation no matter how hard you may try or wish to).

I'm an ESL teacher and must have a very concise understanding of language if I am to teach it. A general complaint I have is about modern theology as developed by individuals with short life spans without knowledge of problems of translation or other cultures. My favorite example is Matt. 1:24-25, where the English time word "until" is used, rather than the more appropriate (as it turns out) "while". Or take any reference to Christ's "brothers". Anyone who takes the trouble to go and live in an Eastern culture will learn that the word "brother" is applied with little distinction to cousins as well, and by no means is a guarantee that the people referred to share the same mother. But in English, it does, and this causes trouble for me in teaching little Russian kids using English only that they must not refer to cousins. But the point is, that on little things like this hang the doctrine of the Ever-Virgin Mary (or more accurately, its elimination). And that's only one example. We as short-lived humans simply don't have enough knowledge and wisdom to be our own interpreters of Scripture.

It's interesting to note that the continuous tenses saw far less use in the 17th century than today. Thus, the KJV in English that most western Protestants rely heavily on, if only as the basis for their own modern translation, uses the present simple (indefinite) verb tense where a modern translation would render it into the present continuous verb tense.

Compare these verb tenses:
I am saved. (I am now in a finished state; or, an action that is repeated on a [regular] basis.)
I am being saved. (I am in the process)
I was saved. (This is finished and is no longer relevant to the present.)
I have been saved. (I was saved in the past and this is relevant to the present.

It ought to be clear that by simply changing the verb tense, we can change the theology. If we cannot refer to an authority that stands above the translations and publicly adjudge one party right and another wrong in case of dispute of interpretation, we do not have theology - we have chaos, where anybody can come up with their own interpretations, claim guidance of the Holy Spirit, and break off and start their own church, which is what, in fact, happens*.

*In memory of Brother Nick, who did precisely that in my own Bible Baptist church. (lest anyone say that I have no experience of this)

[ImmersionX]

deleted by poster.

[fushiarose]

discernment, discernment.That is just the word hateful Christians throw around as an excuse to be mean. Just because someone does not have the same views that you do gives you no right to question their Christianity. I stand by my angry person statement.
Also, words are cheap. Real action like devoting yourself to working with the unfortunately speaks louder than words.


It would have been pretty silly of Jesus to tell us to beware of wolves if we had no way to tell who the wolves are, wouldn't it?



And how did she expect them to come to Christ if she didn't preach the Gospel to them.



What a silly thing to say.



No, I'm not angry. I'm just disappointed that there are so many people on a Baptist forum who don't show any discernment and have to fall back on silly ad homs and straw men like "Why do you hate Mother Theresa".

[WarEagle]

discernment, discernment.That is just the word hateful Christians throw around as an excuse to be mean.

You mean like in Mal. 3:18? Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.

Just because someone does not have the same views that you do gives you no right to question their Christianity.

Where in the world are you getting this stuff? I never did this.

I stand by my angry person statement.
Also, words are cheap. Real action like devoting yourself to working with the unfortunately speaks louder than words.

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

[rusmeister]

Hey War Eagle, I'm not sure if you understood the thrust of my posts.



Are you familiar with Dr. Clark Carlton? I wouldn't expect his explanations of problems of Baptist theology to sway you, but at least you would understand why we could never accept it.
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/from_baptist_to_first_century.htm

some podcasts of his:
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/carlton

[WarEagle]

Hey War Eagle, I'm not sure if you understood the thrust of my posts.



Are you familiar with Dr. Clark Carlton? I wouldn't expect his explanations of problems of Baptist theology to sway you, but at least you would understand why we could never accept it.
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/from_baptist_to_first_century.htm


I'm not sure what was more offputting: his contempt for fundamentalists or the fact that he didn't bother to show one verse of scripture that shows that any of our doctrines are wrong.

I also thought it was interesting that, when asked at the time he claims to have been a Baptist, he says he believes he was saved by baptism, which is an foreign an idea to Baptists as salvation by repentance and faith in Christ's atonement alone is to Roman Catholics and Orthodox.

Doesn't exactly add credibility to his claims.

[rusmeister]

I'm not sure what was more offputting: his contempt for fundamentalists or the fact that he didn't bother to show one verse of scripture that shows that any of our doctrines are wrong.

I also thought it was interesting that, when asked at the time he claims to have been a Baptist, he says he believes he was saved by baptism, which is an foreign an idea to Baptists as salvation by repentance and faith in Christ's atonement alone is to Roman Catholics and Orthodox.

Doesn't exactly add credibility to his claims.

Well, I thought that on a thread like this it might be good to put the shoe on the other foot. While some are sitting in judgement on Mother Theresa because of the nature of her faith, the nature of your faith could be equally judged and you could be seen just as in the wrong as you see MT.
One significant difference is that Orthodox and Catholics don't presume to know the state of salvation of others, so at least we don't assume you are damned.

I think your objections to Mr. Carlton are reasonable. However, I think you took his contempt (if that is the best word) for the doctrines he came to reject for contempt for people, for which I see no evidence. I'm sure you would agree that if we do find a teaching to be false, some form of dislike would be an appropriate reaction to that teaching. Also, it might be helpful for you to understand why quoting Scripture verses might not be seen as absolutely necessary if you understand the objections to Sola Scriptura (in the popular understanding of the term). (Now you have to show that either you know them and truly have superior arguments, or ask what those objections are.) He did, however, quote Scripture:
In my rhetorical tribute to all things truly Baptist I insisted, "The lifeblood of denominational existence is our absolute commitment to the freedom of the believer . . . Our response to the Bible should be simply to approach it and obey it as we feel led; it is an individual matter." Obviously, I did not quote 2 Peter 1:20:no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. In my defense, however, I must say that at that time I knew very little about how the Scriptures were written or how the canon came into existence. All I knew was what I heard from the pulpit or read in Protestant books.
A couple of years later, in the midst of the Southern Baptist holy war, I considered my position on the ecclesiastical spectrum and reflected upon Dr. Brewer's diagram. This time I saw myself not as a radical Christian, but as one out on a limb. Suddenly it occurred to me to ask, "How did I get out here?" I no longer wanted "Christianity according to me." I was tired of an individualistic Christianity that needed to be reinvented every generation. I wanted the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). I wanted the faith of the apostles, prophets, martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and of "every righteous spirit made perfect in faith." In short, I wanted the faith of the Church that Christ founded, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
Gradually I came to recognize the fact that Holy Tradition has the same claim upon my life as the Gospel itself, for Tradition is nothing other than the Gospel lived throughout history. It is not my place to judge the Apostolic Tradition and decide how or if to incorporate it into my own religious tradition; rather Holy Tradition judges me and calls me to account for how I have handled "that Good Deposit" that has been committed to Christians. I finally began to understand Paul's admonition to the Thessalonians, a passage I had never heard preached on in a Baptist church, Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle (2 Thess. 2:15).


There are more, but they are used to defend the Orthodox Church, not attack Baptists. He was being drawn towards something, not merely running away from something. In any event, you'll notice that we treat Scripture in its larger context, not merely excising what seems convenient to support an argument we like. On any complex issue, you can find Scripture, like the apparant Paul/James contradiction of faith and works, that actually has an answer that encompasses everything they say, and this is what the Orthodox Church teaches. So I don't just take the Bible on my own. I also ask, what does the Church teach on such-and-such a question, and I get 2 millenia worth of patristic commentary and clarification that beats down one heresy or another that periodically arise.

Also, it is good to really really learn what Orthodox and Catholic doctrines are before presuming that you know what they teach regarding salvation. I think you would be surprised at how much closer they are to what you profess to believe than you think, and that the lines of disagreement are not what you think they are. I would express it to you that they agree with you 100% on repentance and faith in Christ alone, and that we do not, and can not, save ourselves.

Lastly, I wonder if you could link the precise quote of Carlton's where he states that he was saved as a Baptist BY baptism? I know as well as you that that is not Baptist doctrine, and I think it likely he may have been misunderstood (unless the text has been edited since I last read it).

I do agree that he is not likely to be helpful to someone who is fully satisfied with the Baptist faith. It would only be to a person who found it to be insufficient and had begun questioning it that it would be helpful, which was certainly the case with me. The article, as I read it, stated accurately what I had been taught as a child and young man and presented no falsehood about it.

God bless!

[WarEagle]

Well, I thought that on a thread like this it might be good to put the shoe on the other foot. While some are sitting in judgement on Mother Theresa because of the nature of her faith, the nature of your faith could be equally judged and you could be seen just as in the wrong as you see MT.

Then, by all means, tell me what I'm doing that's Unbiblical. Tell me what sin I've got going on in my life.

One significant difference is that Orthodox and Catholics don't presume to know the state of salvation of others, so at least we don't assume you are damned.

I never assumed the state of anyone's salvation and never proclaimed anyone "damned".

It sounds like you and FuschiaRose get your strawmen out of the same garbage can.

I think you took his contempt (if that is the best word) for the doctrines he came to reject for contempt for people, for which I see no evidence.

If he had said "fundamentalist doctrines", then you might have a point, but he did not. He said "fundamentalists" numerous times.

Obviously, he disagrees with our doctrines but he chose to make it personal, instead.

He did, however, quote Scripture:

Read the passage again. He quoted scripture as a way of stating his personal beliefs, not to show how the doctrine is wrong.



There are more, but they are used to defend the Orthodox Church, not attack Baptists. He was being drawn towards something, not merely running away from something.

If his premise is that Baptists are wrong, then he has the responsibility to show from scripture why we're wrong, not simply why he prefers another religion.

In any event, you'll notice that we treat Scripture in its larger context

Yes, so do we. It's called the analogy of scripture and it's the first rule of interpreting the Bible.

Also, it is good to really really learn what Orthodox and Catholic doctrines are before presuming that you know what they teach regarding salvation.

I always find it funny that when a Roman Catholic disagrees with a Christian, it's because God or Mary or some other dead saint has shown them the light and they're finally "coming home to Rome".

However, when a Christian disagrees, it's only because they don't know what Catholics really believe.

That seems awfully arrogant and condescending to me.

I think you would be surprised at how much closer they are to what you profess to believe than you think, and that the lines of disagreement are not what you think they are.

Actually, I talk to Roman Catholics all the time and they tell me first hand what they believe. Couple this with the education I received from the Catholic church and I believe that what I've claimed is pretty accurate.

I would express it to you that they agree with you 100% on repentance and faith in Christ alone, and that we do not, and can not, save ourselves.

Really? So then a Roman Catholic would state that their ritual of sprinkling water on the heads of babies, confession, communion, and pledging allegience to the Catholic church and the pope's authority add absolutely nothing to salvation?

Lastly, I wonder if you could link the precise quote of Carlton's where he states that he was saved as a Baptist BY baptism? I know as well as you that that is not Baptist doctrine, and I think it likely he may have been misunderstood (unless the text has been edited since I last read it).

Here you go:

While attending a college speech tournament at Tennessee Temple University in Chattanooga, Tennessee, I was approached by an earnest young student and asked if I had been "saved." Although reared in a Southern Baptist church from infancy, I was nonetheless put off by both the abruptness of the question and the fact that it was coming from someone I had never met before. Though evangelical to the core, I was uncomfortable with this kind of "in your face" evangelism. I answered that I had been baptized, and that seemed to satisfy him.

The interesting thing is, if you keep on reading, he admits that he doesn't even know the day he was saved, which casts further doubt on the truthfulness of his claims.

I do agree that he is not likely to be helpful to someone who is fully satisfied with the Baptist faith. It would only be to a person who found it to be insufficient and had begun questioning it that it would be helpful, which was certainly the case with me. The article, as I read it, stated accurately what I had been taught as a child and young man and presented no falsehood about it.

And I believe that he did.

Not only do his statements about his beliefs as a Baptist casts serious doubts on his claims, he does not offer even one verse to refute Christian doctrine and the whole thing is just a rant against fundamentalists.

[VT_Boy]

Just because a person did loads of good deeds doesn't mean they're a Christian or going to heaven. There's loads of good moral people in the world. God only knows whether she was or not.

Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.



*

Would a Baptist moderator please PM me or answer here if the rules have changed about non Baptist members debating in the Baptist forum? :scratch:

[PaladinGirl]

I think Mother Theresa was a good woman but being a good person is not enough to get you in to Heaven. Whether or not she was saved, on the other hand, is another story. I have no idea if she ever received salvation or not. I hope that she did but I honestly don't know. If she was never born again, you won't see her in Heaven.

[PaladinGirl]

Just because a person did loads of good deeds doesn't mean they're a Christian or going to heaven. There's loads of good moral people in the world. God only knows whether she was or not.

Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.

Exactly! Just because she did loads of good deeds does not mean that she is going to Heaven. Some Atheists even do loads of good deeds but you won't see them in Heaven unless they were saved at some point in their life.

[fushiarose]

War Eagle wrote:
I never assumed the state of anyone's salvation and never proclaimed anyone "damned".

It sounds like you and FuschiaRose get your strawmen out of the same garbage can.

To War Eagle: I am done argueing with you. I will just agree to disagree with you. You need to make your posts kinder and gentler in the future. There is no reason for you to get hateful with me and others.
That is the last I have to say about it. Don't even bother to respond to this. I am not coming back to the Baptist forum for a week or two. maybe not then.
I read on your profile that you were a minister of some sorts. I feel sorry for your congregation. For someone that doesn't like Fred Phelps, you sure do act like him. I thought you might be his son.

[WarEagle]

To War Eagle: I am done argueing with you.

Umm...actually, you weren't arguing. You were just calling me names.

I will just agree to disagree with you.

And with the verses of scripture I posted, right?
You need to make your posts kinder and gentler in the future. There is no reason for you to get hateful with me and others.

Why don't you tell me who I've been hateful to so I can repent and apologize to them?

Don't even bother to respond to this. I am not coming back to the Baptist forum for a week or two. maybe not then.
I read on your profile that you were a minister of some sorts. I feel sorry for your congregation. For someone that doesn't like Fred Phelps, you sure do act like him.

Really? How do I act like Fred Phelps?

I thought you might be his son.

No, no relation. We spell and pronounce our names differently.

Hey, seriously, FuschiaRose. You seem to have a lot of anger in you. I'm praying for you. Jesus will take that anger away if you let Him.

[rusmeister]

Hi War Eagle!
I don't think it's useful to go back and forth, and I do agree with sentiments expressed that we strive to express ourselves in a spirit of charity - and please forgive me where I have failed in that!

The root of all debate is what we accept as authority. The most important question is the one that went unanswered - Also, it might be helpful for you to understand why quoting Scripture verses might not be seen as absolutely necessary if you understand the objections to Sola Scriptura (in the popular understanding of the term). (Now you have to show that either you know them and truly have superior arguments, or ask what those objections are.)

All of your arguments depend entirely on quoting Scripture, as this is what you perceive to be the authority. If you know what the objections to Sola Scriptura are, you should understand why we don't just start slinging Bible verses at each other.

I would respond to your responses, but am afraid that this question would get drowned out in attempts to discuss details, without having established what exactly IS Scripture, what IS the Word of God (you seem to see it exclusively as the Bible, which makes no sense in the context of the Gospel of John ch 1), the history of the Bible and who determined what was canonic Scripture and what was not and so on.

You can't effectively argue (in the intellectual sense) if you don't understand what Sola Scriptura is or the objections to it. You need to understand the arguments of your opponent in order to defeat them, and you need to find the root assumptions on which both your own faith and the faith of those you disagree with is based. (I'll be happy to get back to Clark Carlton if we hash that out!) :)

[WarEagle]

All of your arguments depend entirely on quoting Scripture

Thank you.

[rusmeister]

This should have been underlined:

You can't effectively argue (in the intellectual sense) if you don't understand what Sola Scriptura is or the objections to it. You need to understand the arguments of your opponent in order to defeat them, and you need to find the root assumptions on which both your own faith and the faith of those you disagree with is based.

Does your response mean you don't understand what Sola Scriptura is or are familar with the objections to it?

[DeaconDean]

Mod Hat On!

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/images/coolhandluke4.JPG

What we have here, is, failure ta communicate!



I want to take the time to remind our "Non-Baptist" friends of the FSG's for the Baptist area:

Only those who agree with a congregational forum’s Statement of Faith may post as members of that forum. Statements of Faith are found in the congregational forum’s forum-specific guidelines (FSGs), found at the top of each specific forum.


All are welcome to post in fellowship (see below for definition).


Those who do not agree with the congregational forum’s Statement of Faith may not debate or post teaching or instruction posts. NOTE: Some forums may allow more debate by non-members than others. If so, it will be stated in their forum-specific guidelines (FSGs).

In general, questions asked in a congregation’s forum should be answered only by members of that forum.


http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6899690

You are more than welcome to post fellowship posts and/or encouragment posts, and you may ask questions. But you cannot debate in this area.

OK, we're friends again.

Mod Hat Off!

God Bless

Till all are one.

[ReformedChapin]

I just want to say something about Mother Teresa..

I've heard some people say that Mother Teresa didn't lead people to Christ. But I think that is incorrect.. what she did is she showed them God's love. And there are many stories of people who repented before their death and turned to God simply because Mother Teresa or the other sisters showed them kindness and compassion !! :) We shouldn't simply preach the gospel, we should do so with love and through our actions not only our words...

some people have also questioned Mother Teresa's faith in Christ. I find this a little strange, and I wonder how much people really know about her. I'd like to put in a quote from her book "no greater love":

"what is my spiritual life? A love union with Jesus in which the divine and the human give themselves completely to one another. All that Jesus asks of me is to give myself to Him in all my poverty and nothingness.....

Love Jesus generously. Love Him trustfully, without looking back and without fear. Give yourself fully to Jesus, He will use you to accomplish great things on the condition that you believe much more in His love than in your weakness. Believe in Him, trust in Him with a blind and absolute confidence because He is Jesus. Believe that Jesus and Jesus alone is life, and sanctity is nothing but that same Jesus intimately living in you; then His hand will be free with you.

Who is Jesus to me?
Jesus is the Word made flesh.
Jesus is the Bread of Life.
Jesus is the Victim offered for our sins on the cross.

...To me: Jesus is my God
Jesus is my spouse
Jesus is my life
Jesus is my only love
Jesus is my all in all
Jesus is my everything.

JESUS, I love with my whole heart, with my whole being. I have given Him all, even my sins, and He has espoused me to Himself in all tenderness and love"

:) I think by her words and the love she showed, and actions, we can see that Mother Teresa believed in Jesus and loved Him. In fact I think she loved Him more than I do. She's a great example of a Christian for us.

So when people say that they don't think she went to heaven... that really puzzles me. I understand that not everyone agrees with her Catholic theology, but we all know that it's not theology that saves us... but Christ.. and she clearly had faith in Him.

God bless

monica
Seems like she has some weird pantheist notion of Christ with the quotes presented by the OP.

For the record, I do think there is some saved Catholics out there, but there as a lot of them that are not since their tradition seems to get mixed a lot with the spirit of the age alot.

[ReformedChapin]

She is not saying that people are God, she is just using the verse about helping Christ if we help 'the least of these'.. ;) it's not pantheistic, she's jsut taking that verse and applying it to how she lives her life. her statement that Jesus is inside of everyone and the fact that other people of other religions are saved is not a historic christian orthodox position...sure does resemble contemporary newage and relativistic views




I'd say only God can know people's hearts, and we have no right to judge someone else's salvation.
I can speak for myself though, I've grown in my relationship with God lots since I've become Catholic (I was non denom Protestant).

God bless

monica
And you are right, but a good tree cannot produce bad fruit. It's not my job to judge, infact I never I discern sheep in wolves clothing which come in both protestant and catholic forms.

[TexasSky]

First - I do not think it is an incorrect interpretation of Matthew 25:31-46. I think, rather, that it is an incorrect interpretation of Mother Theresa's words.

Matthew 25:31-46. (The Sheep and the Goats."

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory." = Verse 31. Certainly SOUNDS like Christ to me.

"All nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." = v 32.

"He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on the left." vs 33.

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world." = vs 34. Again, obviously Christ speaking of Christ.

"For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in," = vs 35.

"I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me." = vs 36.

"Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?" = vs 37. (Sounds like the attitude many of you have on this thread.)

"When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?" = vs 38. (Again, sounds like some of you people.)

"When did we see you sick or in prison and go visit you?" (And there you go again.) = vs 39.

The King will reply, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." = vs 40.

So, what Mother Theresa is saying, is that whatever you do for the poor, you have done for Christ.

And- be wary of discouraging love in the name of Christ.
The rest of Christ's message follows.

"Then He will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me." verses 41-43.

"They also will answer, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?" = vs 44.

"He will reply, I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." = vs 45.

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

------
By the way, what she ACTUALLY said about the poor is, "Each one of them is Jesus in disguise." Which is EXACTLY what the parable of Christ said. It is a scripture commonly taught that way, and those who teach it that way do not mean "This human being is literally Christ," but rather, "treat every person as if they are Christ."

Was she a Christian.
Did she teach people about Christ?

"I know God will not give me anything I cannot handle."
"No, I wouldn't touch a leer for a thousand pounds; yet I willingly cure him for the love of God."
"Jesus said love one another."
"Many people mistake our work for our vocation. Our vocation is the love of Jesus."
"Sweetest Lord, make me appreciative of the dignity of my high vocation, and its many responsibilities."
"There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the wor. This is where the respect and love and the devotion come in - that we do it to God, to Christ, and that's why we try to do it as beautifully as possible."
"We need to find God."
"Words which do not give the light of Christ increase the darkness."
"Keep the joy of loving God in your heart and share this joy with all you meet, especialy your family. Be holy. Pray."
"God loves a cheerful giver."
"God made the world rich enough to feed and clothe all human beings."
"Pride destroys everything. To imitate Jesus is the key to be meek and humble in heart."
"Keep the light of Christ always shining in your hearts. Only He is the Way to be trodden. He is the Truth we must speak out. He is thej love we must speak out."
"Faith in action is love, and love in action is service. By transforming that faith into living acts of love, we put ourselves in contact with God Himself, with Jesus our Lord."
"Let us bring love and compassion to win the world, to bring the world the gospel of Christ. Let us all bring the good news that God loves the world!"
"Communion with Christ gives us our strength, our joy, and our love."


The attitude that this woman "could not be a Christian" because she was Catholic is utterly shameful for anyone professing to be a Christian to possess.

Christ said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."
Christ said, "The greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind, and the second is this, to love your neighbor as yourself."

And the bible teaches if you break the commandment of love, you have broken ALL the LAW.

This woman taught that God loves us, that Christ is our only hope, that Christ is our salvation.

How is that "unChristian?"


What have YOU done that Christ TOLD you to do today that is above and beyond what this dear woman did with her entire life?
Have YOU done the DOs of God's word?

[WarEagle]

And- be wary of discouraging love in the name of Christ.

I would be more wary of neglecting to share the Gospel with the lost and calling it love.

Was she a Christian

Based on the doctrines she held, I would have to say no.

Did she teach people about Christ?

Based on the fact that there are no examples of her ever having shared the Gospel, and even her supporters here can't give an example of her having shared the Gospel, I've got to say no again.


"Communion with Christ gives us our strength, our joy, and our love."

And what about those who are not only not in communion with Christ, but are at emnity with Christ? How does she expect them to have communion with Christ unless they're born again?


The attitude that this woman "could not be a Christian" because she was Catholic is utterly shameful for anyone professing to be a Christian to possess.

Why? Many Catholics aren't Christians. Why not her?

Christ said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Right. That's one verse taken out of context in a chapter in which Christ commands us to be on the look out for people like Theresa. Why is it that people who always want to quote Matthew 7:1 out of context will never acknowledge that the passage, when taken as a whole, says precisely the opposite of what they mean it to say?

This woman taught that God loves us, that Christ is our only hope, that Christ is our salvation.

Then why can't you give us any example of her preaching the Gospel? If she believed that Christ is our only hope and our salvation, then why did she say that people could be saved by being "better Hindus, better Buddhists", doing acts of charity, etc.

What have YOU done that Christ TOLD you to do today that is above and beyond what this dear woman did with her entire life?

I've shared the Gospel with the lost and have done it according to the word of God.

Have YOU done the DOs of God's word?

Yes.

[rusmeister]

It's impossible for you guys to get anywhere as long as you don't discuss what Sola Scriptura is and what the objections to it are. I'm not going to debate it as per the mod's request, but it's an observation about the futility of judging the rightness or wrongness of Mother Theresa's actions (and of course, others have pointed out the danger of focusing on the motes in her eye). It seems there are posters here that really don't know much about the concept.

[TexasSky]

Tell me, War Eagle,

How do you justify dismissing teaching others that Jesus Christ is the only way to Salvation as "not sharing the gospel of Christ?"

Mother Theresa DID indeed teach that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. That He is the Son of God, that He is the only answer, the only way to salvation.

She taught, not only the great commission, but a Christian duty to teach the great commission.

The President of Southwestern Theological Seminary said, "If Christians spent as much time doing what God instructs them to do as they do criticizing fellow Christians, the world would all know the good news of Christ, but they don't."

You have spent a great deal of time, on this forum, knocking a woman who dispensed great love in the name of Jesus Christ.
How did that save one soul?
How did that lead one person to Christ?

[WarEagle]

Tell me, War Eagle,

How do you justify dismissing teaching others that Jesus Christ is the only way to Salvation as "not sharing the gospel of Christ?"

Could you please give me an example of Theresa ever sharing the Gospel with anyone?

Mother Theresa DID indeed teach that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. That He is the Son of God, that He is the only answer, the only way to salvation.

She taught, not only the great commission, but a Christian duty to teach the great commission.

Then why can't any of her supporters here give an example of her having done so?

You have spent a great deal of time, on this forum, knocking a woman who dispensed great love in the name of Jesus Christ.

A) Please show where I "knocked" anyone.

B) Please explain how it is "dispensing great love in the name of Jesus Christ" to deceive people into believing that they can be a Hindu or a Buddhist or rely on their own works for their salvation and be saved.

How did that save one soul?
How did that lead one person to Christ?

It didn't and it wasn't meant to. It was meant to address some misunderstandings about Christian doctrine and to point out that Theresa did not follow Christian doctrine and did not do what many are applauding her for doing.

[VT_Boy]

It's impossible for you guys to get anywhere as long as you don't discuss what Sola Scriptura is and what the objections to it are. I'm not going to debate it as per the mod's request, but it's an observation about the futility of judging the rightness or wrongness of Mother Theresa's actions (and of course, others have pointed out the danger of focusing on the motes in her eye). It seems there are posters here that really don't know much about the concept.

This post might not be a debating one but you're still not following the rules of the Baptist forum to only post questions or fellowship post as a non-Baptist member. Baptists are not perfect, same with your denomination or any other denomination. There's different beliefs even in the Baptist forum and we are allowed ourselves to discuss different beliefs and agree to disagree at times. Your congregational forum is no different in having different beliefs and discussing them within your own forum. What is your point in coming here and trying to cause problems in the Baptist forum. :scratch:

[Canaan-84]

This post might not be a debating one but you're still not following the rules of the Baptist forum to only post questions or fellowship post as a non-Baptist member. Baptists are not perfect, same with your denomination or any other denomination. There's different beliefs even in the Baptist forum and we are allowed ourselves to discuss different beliefs and agree to disagree at times. Your congregational forum is no different in having different beliefs and discussing them within your own forum. What is your point in coming here and trying to cause problems in the Baptist forum. :scratch:

I noticed that my posts were deleted, why is debate not allowed here? I was posting here since I noticed you guys were discussing a Catholic figure, and some took the opportunity to attack the Church by saying Catholics are not real christians, yet my posts are deleted for defending Mother Teresa and the Church. I didn't respond in a malicious manner either.

[rusmeister]

One piece of honest fellowship that I would like to offer is that over in TAW we have a sub-forum where non-Orthodox are allowed to debate. In this way we can maintain a main forum which holds the supremacy of our Faith, while having an honest place where people who disagree can comment. I think you guys would benefit from having something like that. As it is, people here can knock Mother Theresa openly, but no one is allowed to either defend her or point out misunderstandings. That would be taken by anyone not fully sharing this particular view as unjust hypocrisy.

Fellowship is a rather broad word, but this is certainly not a debate post (neither was my previous one). For my part, it is an attempt at honest fellowship (which I don't understand to mean merely saying nice things, but to participate in a meaningful way in the discussion).

[fushiarose]

Tell me, War Eagle,


You have spent a great deal of time, on this forum, knocking a woman who dispensed great love in the name of Jesus Christ.
How did that save one soul?
How did that lead one person to Christ?


Amen. very true. that is all i am going to say.