What fellowship has light with darkness?

Christian Churches Together is such a false fellowship.

And why is the superset of my church a part of this?

And this is the spin that Rome puts on things

Ever arrogant, stepping in and claiming the prize where others labored, Rome thinks it evangelized Germany. Here's her spin on "Saint" Boniface, from EWTN:
"Isolated missionary groups had penetrated central Germany in earlier times, but not until the eighth century was there a systematic effort to Christianize the vast pagan wilderness."

Let me translate that sentence: "The Culdees under the rule of Columbanus of Iona had systematically penetrated central Germany in earlier times and planted churches free of Rome's corrupting influence, but not until the eight century was there a systematic effort to Romanize the vast newly Christianized region."

I think I interpolated a little bit. Sorry. Those poor Culdees probably didn't have the proper Vulgate, either.

I think Jesus put it more succinctly: "Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof." (Matt. 13:32) The tree in this parable is not a good thing. Birds are not good things. They steal the Word. Mustard seeds are supposed to grow into mustard plants, not trees.

Jesus also put it like this: "But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way." (Matt. 13:25). So whose fault is it? We must not sleep.

J. A. Wylie's History Of The Scottish Nation

I'm going to read this. Already read about the Culdees' work in France, noted in the previous post. Fascinating.

So Cahill's book should really be titled, "How the Scots Saved Civilization."

This is how you evangelize

The Scots (aka the Irish) did it right.

Man, Rome really sucks! She'll get hers soon.

An adjustment, perhaps

Just started to listen to Harold Chase of Minnesota Valley Baptist Church. He's making a good, but naturalistic, case for the Majority Text as opposed to the Textus Receptus, which is close. He cited 15-20 places where they differ, including the big one--1 John 5:7. Not even Burgon thinks 1 John 5:7 is genuine. I think he said it's not even in any of the versions (syriac, old latin, etc.), but that may have been another verse.

The same basic overarching philosophical considerations that make the TR position attractive also make the MT position attractive. As long as one gives due weight to the Versions and the early Church Teachers. But it seems the MT position avoids wild-eyed fundamentalism.

WWDJWBD?

I hit the jackpot in audio sermons.