Even Mother Teresa Has Haters

There are those who think Mother Teresa was a heretic. Seriously. My wife got one of those visitors on her Facebook page, calling Mother Teresa a false prophetess of some twisted sort. Mother-freaking-Teresa. For all things holy and good, I can’t let this one go without commenting.

Be careful. This is what a false prophetess looks like.

Careful. This is what the false gospel looks like.

Wendy posted a quote she read during her sister’s memorial service on Saturday:

“Love has no other message but its own. Every day we try to live out Christ’s love in a very tangible way, in every one of our deeds. If we do any preaching, it is done with deeds, not with words. That is our witness to the gospel.” ~Mother Teresa

If you’re thinking these are the words of someone as self-centered and uncaring as the Wolf of Wall Street, you aren’t too far from one of Wendy’s Facebook friends who felt the need to correct Wendy’s blind admiration for Mother Teresa:

Mother Teresa is evil quote

Seriously. Shall I list the err in her words? Let me list a few:

  1. The TRUE Gospel of Jesus Christ is one that this person knows, and Mother Teresa didn’t preach it “at all.” That’s absolute: at all. Mother Teresa is totally wrong. She didn’t get anything right. We’re not talking an average person here, we’re talking the nun who vowed a life of poverty to help the most destitute people on the planet. This poster has judged Mother Teresa as absolutely wrong.
  2. “Getting saved” is not done by the deeds of someone like Mother Teresa, nor kindness. All that ridiculousness about feeding the poor and diseased in Calcutta, petty hogwash. If no one “got saved,” then there is no point to the good deeds that took place.
  3. Preaching the gospel with your actions is — according to this poster — not true. Not true. Mother Teresa’s quote is representative of a “false gospel” that was “clearly condemned by Jesus and the apostles.” Clearly condemned. Jesus, Paul, and all the rest of them would have clearly condemned total sacrifice to the poorest destitute on the planet. Can you hear Jesus, Paul, and the rest of them clearly condemning Mother Teresa’s inspiring good will to the people of Calcutta? “To hell with them…Teresa, speak up about the TRUE Gospel already!”
  4. Need proof? Read all of Galatians.
  5. Jesus’ message was to repentance and FULL surrender and total abandonment of self. Mother Teresa was so far from repentance, surrender and total abandonment that she deserves an abrupt and public rebuke from this person’s living room iPad, safely nestled in the warmth of the wealthiest country on the planet.
  6. Need proof? Read the two verses in the bible she cut-n-pasted from Bible Gateway.

There are actually people in the world who hate on Mother Teresa. This gives me pause, and here’s why. There are those who surrender all to help those in need. Mother Teresa was one of the few who understood and acted out with the tremendous love and compassion that is exactly as she said it, “our witness to the gospel.” Personally, I struggle to hold true to the kind of total surrender Mother Teresa displayed (and this troll ironically criticizes). Of all the people on the planet that can be admired for bravely walking the sacrificial and life-giving walk of Christ, Mother Teresa takes the cake.

But even more pause: if Mother Teresa is worth the judgment of a twisted religious zealot, then the heart of a Pharisee cuts deep. He (or she) will go to the most illogical and ridiculous ends to attack true love in action. This person (and I suppose there are some who agree with her) actually went out of her way to attack Mother Teresa. This heart of judgment knows no boundary if such a holy and devout woman is the victim of her self-proclaimed condemnation. I cannot agree with whatever gospel she preaches, but I can certainly sign on to the gospel of Mother Teresa’s.

Her husband got on FB and double-downed. He quoted scripture, posted videos of sermons he listened to, and ranted about how petty Mother Teresa’s work was because — according to him — she didn’t preach the TRUE gospel. It wasn’t pretty, but oh-so-revealing. I’m going to leave my rebuttal here and let it sink in.

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

  • Doug Tjaden

    Chris. You know my journey away from legalism. You also know my strong belief that we need both truth and love, in balance (Ephesians 4:15). Normally, I’d just let something like this go, but my friend, I think your post contains a bit of hyperbole.

    As you word smithed her comment, you skipped the very first word. “If.” Her claim was not absolute. It was conditional. That being, “if” Mother Teresa did not ever speak the name of Jesus, she did not communicate the full gospel. Now, I suspect that Mother Theresa, or those around her who had a chance to minister to the people she was serving, spoke the name of Jesus often.

    The commenter seems to have used the quote to make the point that too many Christians today actually try to “show” Jesus by their deeds, and are afraid to “tell” people about Him – especially that repentance thing. That in itself is a form of works based “see my great deeds!” religion that will NOT bring people to a saving knowledge of Christ. It might make them curious to know what moves a person to act such a way. In also can have the opposite effect and be quite intimidating. They could feel, “I can’t be like Mother Theresa.” The good news is they don’t have to! Christ died for them just as they are (although we are not called to stay there). People need to hear that in order to be saved.

    To claim that this commenter called Mother Teresa a “false prophet” and is a “hater” is hyperbole. She made no such claim. Her conditional “if” moved the argument of her point away from the person of Mother Teresa (her quote was used as example, although maybe not the best choice), and moved it to to a group of people who believe they can “preach the gospel at all times, and if necessary use words.” This quote is also not the best to make her point, as it does contain the possibility to “use words.” But if one is reading what she is trying to communicate, one can grasp her point easily.

    Taken to it’s literal extreme, where the name of Jesus is never mentioned in our witness, she is correct in saying people will not be saved, and if they think their good deeds is the entirety of the gospel – they are preaching a false one. People have to hear of the One who placed the heart in Mother Theresa that would move her to do what she did. The scripture she referenced is in context and is accurate. And I agree with her point even if it wasn’t perfectly delivered.

    • Sarcasm and ridicule, yes, but I don’t believe I’m exaggerating. Pardon my snarky response, but I think it’s rude of someone to feel the need correct a simple quote of Mother Teresa. I still think I’m correct on this: criticizing Mother Teresa as sharing a false gospel is an extreme swipe to someone who dedicated her life to feeding the world’s most extreme poor. That’s a pretty fair analysis, Doug, not hyperbole.

      This debate brings rise to a conflict within the circle of believers: should our actions be laden with deed or word? Honestly, I don’t think these need to be exclusive of one another. But I do lean toward deed more than word, and I’ll spare the time necessary to rebut with a litany of verses other than James 2:14.

      • Doug Tjaden

        I am responding directly to what you said about a single comment she posted, not an entire FB thread of which I, nor some of the other readers of your blog, may have read. Sorry Chris, but based on that post, which is the only context we have, your labeling this woman a Mother Theresa “hater” is both
        hyperbole and an ad hominem attack. Nothing she shared in her comment
        indicated she “hated” her. I have people I disagree with all the time on theological issues. We make our points and quote our scriptures. I certainly don’t “hate” them.

        • I think you’re misunderstanding what a “hater” (noun) is, how it’s different from “hating” (verb). Sure, the poster probably doesn’t “hate” Mother Teresa, but her desire to label and judge her good work is behaving like a “hater”… http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hater

          • Doug Tjaden

            Cmon’ Chris. That is an awfully nuanced position, and one that the majority of people reading will not take. The title of this post directly implies that she “hates” Mother Teresa, and is not just a “hater” in general.

            • I’ll grant that “hater” implies “hate,” kind of a given. However, while “hater” may be a new term for you, it’s hardly nuanced. It is a common term that isn’t too difficult to understand. And it isn’t an ad hominem nor hyperbole, which is what you accused me of. It is simply what it is (did you read the definition link?).

              I appreciate your thoughts, Doug, as always. But you’re just plain wrong on this one.

              Why are you getting so bent out of shape on this one definition anyway? You seem to be missing my point entirely.

              • Doug Tjaden

                ??? I was not the one to split hairs on the definition Chris. I am trying to get you to understand how your readers receive your posts. What it means to others who may come in contact with your ministry. How it comes across to them? That’s kind of important isn’t it?

                Your implication that the definition of “hater” is new to me is another snarky reply. Your use of the “urban” dictionary’s definition is a bit fluffy. I go with Webster. A little more direct.


                Oh, and by this definition, if the implication is that the woman who replied to Wendy’s post is a “hater” of Mother Teresa – it is hyperbole and an attack on her character.

                You got my email. I’ll stand on it. If you want to continue this conversation, reply to it or give me a call. I only have you, your family, and your ministry’s best interests at heart.

  • Patrina Eichman

    I normally don’t get involved in these discussions, but I would like to say some thing. I have to say, I believe that the root of the problem here is not what was said as much as who was Mother Teresa and what did she really mean. Attacking and slandering her is not addressing the subject at hand. It must be taken into consideration that she was Roman Catholic. These beliefs would come into play when comments and quotes were made by her. When we read the story of the rich young man (Matthew 19), he asks what hew must DO to be saved. Jesus wanted him to give up trying to earn his way, give up what he had put his trust in and fully trust him as his savior. This, I think, is truly what should have been addressed by this person instead of the attack of personage. What did she really mean by her comment? What does the Bible say? This is the true question.

  • Caleb DeLon

    Thank you, Doug. That’s exactly what I wanted to say. The commenter’s point was very narrow: Good works without the gospel verbally delivered will not save anyone.

    To Chris Jeub: First, thank you for your other posts. I look at them all and enjoy many of them. But I cannot deny that I am saddened by this post. I don’t believe you have represented the commenter’s point fairly. And then how you address this lady is, in my opinion, totally inappropriate. You accuse her of being a troll and being a “twisted religious zealot.” You at least imply that she’s a Pharisee and has a “heart of judgment.” I think you at least implicitly deny that she is even a Christian and knows the true gospel–correct me if I’m wrong; I based that on your statement that you “cannot agree with whatever gospel she preaches.”

    Let me see if I can paraphrase the core of the comment, giving what I believe the commenter intended to convey. If Mother Teresa never ever ever shared the gospel verbally, she did not share the gospel (because the gospel is a verbal message and thus must be shared verbally. You cannot share the gospel with actions any more than you can share the front page of the newspaper with actions.). She absolutely lived out what a life lived in accordance with the gospel looks like, but if we use “share” in its normal usage Mother Teresa was only preaching/sharing the gospel if she used words.

    I don’t think any of your six errors are implied by the comment. I agree with what I believe the commenter intended to convey: words are essential to convey the gospel message. I’ll stand by that.

    Chris, you say a lot about love on this blog. I appreciate that. Maybe that’s my most basic question about this post: Where’s the love? We are commanded to speak the truth in love. Even if everything you are saying is true, are you saying it in a loving manner? Would the commenter feel loved while reading this post? Maybe she would. I don’t know. But I think that if I were the one being addressed by this post, I would feel demonized and attacked, not loved. Even if we call this commenter an “enemy”, we are all commanded to love our enemies. I ask this not to judge but in the hope that you will sincerely consider it: Are your words loving?

    I’ve prayed about this comment, and I truly don’t believe I’m writing this out of self-righteousness or legalism. I’m just saddened by the words I read attacking this lady. If you think I’m being self-righteous or legalistic, let me know. I’ll re-read everything again and consider once more.

    Striving to speak the truth in love,
    Caleb DeLon

    • Wendy’s friend felt the obnoxious need (as did her husband who jumped on his wife’s profile) to convince the world that Mother Teresa was actually diametrically opposed to the “TRUE Gospel.” Okay, my tone wasn’t perfect in my response, but grant me the same graces you’re granting the woman who is posting conspiracy links about how heretical Mother Teresa to my wife’s FB wall.

      Of all people, Mother Teresa. This is quackery. I’m finding it hard to think that calling it out is wrong or unloving.

      • Caleb DeLon

        Thanks for your gracious response. I haven’t read the original FB series of comments, so I suppose that’s limiting my viewpoint a bit. The poster did start out with an “if”, which I think puts her comment in the hypothetical. If she went on to specifically accuse Mother Teresa of actually being opposed to the gospel, then that would require some real substantiation.

        Aside from the actual comment, do you believe that deeds without words are just as bad as words without deeds? I’m intentionally dealing in extremes here. Isn’t it true that deeds that never lead to words, while doing a great deal of earthly good and relieving suffering, will not eternally save anyone? Again, extremes–deeds that “never” lead to words. I’m just concerned that we don’t define the gospel merely in terms of actions and then pat ourselves on the backs while sending people more comfortably toward where we are all naturally headed. I hope we all have both words and deeds–but can’t we at least agree that both extremes are bad?

        Would you be kind enough to clarify one thing from your most recent FB post? You say, “This narrow Christian view is heartless, empty and — yes — godless.” What specifically are you referring to? Is this the view that Mother Teresa was a fraud, that works are unnecessary, that words must accompany our deeds if our actions are to be considered “sharing the gospel”, or something else?

        Thanks again for your kind response. I also will strive to be as gracious can I be.

  • Sometimes I put more thought in my Facebook comments than I do on my own blog. From my FB page:

    Late atheist Christopher Hitchens is noted for
    calling Mother Teresa a fanatic fraud. It surprised me when I first
    read of this years ago. I’ve always thought such a cruel attack on a
    saintly woman who dedicated her life to the world’s most destitute people was evidence of a heartless, empty, godless soul.

    But I guess there are Christians who think similarly. They believe
    Mother Teresa was a false prophetess, someone who spread a “false
    gospel.” After my wife shared a Mother Teresa quote on her FB page, she
    was pounced on by Christian friends who found it in themselves the need
    to expose the “true” Mother Teresa.

    Hitchens attack on Teresa’s
    work was, I believe, predicated in conspiracy theories and personal
    annoyances he has with organized religion. My response to him: get over
    yourself. Quit hating on Mother Teresa.

    The Christian criticism
    is predicated in the idea that words are stronger than deeds, that
    Teresa should have been more forthright in proselytizing the starving
    people of Calcutta. They may not wrap themselves up with themselves, but
    they wrap themselves up with individual bible verses that talk about
    the importance of speaking.

    In other words, their starvation is all fine and dandy, but what they REALLY need are the four spiritual laws.

    I’m not sure which is worse. I get Hitchens’ godless worldview, but
    beating up the little old lady for not “speaking the truth” more
    forcefully? I’m struggling to understand the idea that words speak
    louder than actions.

    No, I’m being facetious. I get it. This
    narrow Christian view is heartless, empty and — yes — godless. Not much
    different than Hitchens. If you hold this view, you should get over it.
    Now. Actions DO speak louder than words, and if any of us become a
    fraction of who Mother Teresa was in her life, we will have lived out
    the pure religion.

    There are WAY more verses than this that
    justify my point, but here are two: James 1:27, 2:14. Read them and
    repent of your false religion, friend….

  • Mary Beth Niksic

    Dear Chris,

    I receive your emails and this one, particularly, caught my eye because I am a Mother Teresa fan. I wanted to read about the Mother Teresa hater that wasn’t Christopher Hitchens. After reading your post it’s clear to me that people like the woman who posted don’t understand the power of the witness of our actions. I speak from experience. My siblings and I were raised Roman Catholic and during college my sister started attending Campus Crusade for Christ meetings and ultimately decided to become Protestant. In her enthusiasm for saving the rest of us from eternal damnation she would insist on us reading the four laws pamphlet; and when we wouldn’t do so, she would try to read it to us. I would do everything possible to not listen: plug my ears, sing a song, walk away. But…I was watching her and I noticed that she was changing. She was more patient, more kind; things I wanted. That’s what made me take notice; not what she told me but how she acted. Only when my heart was open to hearing her message did I hear it. I would think it’s the same for many people. Someone can preach and prod until they’re blue in the face and not be heard, but whoever said “Actions speak louder than words” hit the nail on the head. I wonder how many of those poor people Mother Teresa loved actually talked to her about her faith. My guess would be, countless. If only I could have one millionth of the impact she had on others!

    Thanks for sharing,

    Mary Beth Niksic

    • Sandy

      Hey MB…can’t believe I ran across this post….that was very well-stated, and very timely as I am in Divinity school….yep, go figure…LOL….leading Christian examples can be as loud as words, but mission should also include the Gospel, as much as one can. Hope to hear back from you…Sandy…

      • Mary Beth Niksic

        Sandy? Pitt Alum? I tried to respond to your disqus page through this thread but was unable to access. If not, I apologize; my memory fails me. Regardless, I appreciate your post and would love to hear about your spiritual journey to divinty school. I think your key words are “as much as one can”. Re: Mother Teresa, she not only stood out by her actions, but she wore and all the members of her order, the Missionaries of Charity, wear the distinctive white sari with blue stripes, so people know who they are and what they stand for. Jesus knew the importance of caring for the physical needs of the people, whether feeding them or healing them, before he preached to them. We’ll never know how much Mother Teresa evangelized or how many hearts, by some people’s standards, she “won” for Jesus, but I’m not really concerned about that. She lived the greatest commandment and second greatest to the fullest (Matthew 22: 36-40).

        • Sandy

          yep…hope you and your family are well – haven’t seen you since 2012 when Suzanne Pulley and I got an award. I’m taking a World missiology class right now, and we are discussing that very issue. The historical problems of missionaries and colonialism are astounding. I’m betting Mother Teresa is doing quite well, and I am betting she did change many through her example, alone, and I’m sure she won some hearts for Christ! Great to hear from you. GOD Bless!

          • Mary Beth Niksic

            Hey Sandy. Glad you got in touch. Sounds like an interesting class you’re taking. Have you ever seen the movie “The Mission” with Jeremy Irons and Robert DeNiro? I think it addresses some of the problems you’re probably studying. Highly recommend it. God bless you and your family. I hope all is well.

            • Sandy

              Hey MB – thanks, I’ll check that movie out. It might help me with the Case Study project. Hope you all are well! GOD Bless

  • Jane Tuttle

    I have been following this discussion on Wendy’s FB, your FB and here. This is crazy!
    I would wager that a HUGE percentage of the people in the world who have ever heard of Mother Teresa also know her motivation for her sacrificial love to the poor was her love for Jesus. She made no bones about it. In every interview I ever saw with her, she said “Jesus” in nearly every sentence.
    In 1989, I was privileged to be in a completely full Denver Convention Center when she was speaking there. Only a deaf person could have left there not knowing that she loved God, that Jesus died for us and loved us, and as His followers we are all called to live holy lives. That IS preaching the gospel. I doubt my words will ever reach as many people as hers did in only one hour. And she spent NO TIME on self aggrandizement, but spoke only and constantly of Jesus.
    Now, knowing that she seemed, by all audio accounts, to speak of Jesus verbally in every sentence, am I to really believe that she never spoke of Him to those she was helping? Um, I can’t believe that. But say she didn’t… Can anyone really claim she never preached the gospel? I am a personal witness to her preaching verbally. To more people than I will ever speak to in my lifetime.

  • Jamie Hedlund Anderson

    Some background here from Joel……
    the spirit of full disclosure, I had a hand in most of the posts that
    have caused so much trouble over the last couple days. This post is in
    response to the various Facebook and blog posts that were submitted
    regarding that topic. This isn’t an effort to shield my wife from
    criticism; she’s a big girl and can more than handle it. I just thought
    that I’d point this out because I rarely even look at Facebook, but
    this one caught her eye initially and we decided that it warranted a
    comment, not realizing that it would set off the firestorm that it has,
    blog posts and all. I just happened to get into the act on this one
    using her account.
    the initial response was not an indictment of Mother Teresa’s work as a
    humanitarian. I want to be clear on that because a good portion of the
    angst seems to be aimed at a perceived indifference on my/our part to
    the plight of the world’s needy. Our family supports those types of
    causes financially and we’ve taken trips domestically and to foreign
    countries to help personally.
    being tangentially compared to Christopher Hitchens was interesting to
    say the least. I’ve followed much of his writing and debates for some
    time. A brilliant yet vulgar man. Unfortunately, he is also eternally
    lost. However, he made an interesting observation one time during a
    debate with Dinesh D’Souza in 2008 on the existence of God. D’Souza had
    started the debate by vowing not to invoke any use of biblical
    revelation, Scripture or Scriptural authority in any of his arguments
    for the existence of God. Obviously, holding the contrary position as
    an atheist, Hitch’s comment later on was that he was intrigued how, when
    in debates with “religious” people, they were never willing to claim
    biblical authority as their starting point. Continuing, he loosely
    quoted John 14:6 and questioned why no one ever starts with, “I’ll tell
    you why I’m religious; it’s because I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is
    the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no one comes to the Father but by
    Him. And, if you’ll believe on this, you’ll be given eternal life.” He
    said, “I’d be impressed if someone would actually say that. ” He went
    on to say that without assuming Scriptural authority, one can only start
    by attempting to show the existence of the Divine in the observable
    natural order. He closed by saying that this position is that of a
    deist and all the work is still ahead to prove that this God even cares
    about us. It’s amazing that a man could so accurately describe the
    heart of the Gospel and yet defiantly go to his grave a few years later,
    now forever condemned in his unbelief.
    the Facebook response itself was not intended to be offensive. It was
    and is intended to be biblically accurate. It was certainly not an
    attack on Wendy; you won’t find that type of thing in any of the posts.
    The response was directly in response to Mother Teresa’s own words: “If
    we do any preaching, it is done with deeds, not with words. That is
    our witness to the Gospel.” This is not taken out of context and she
    says DIRECTLY that she doesn’t/didn’t preach with words. I believe her.
    Chris, I am not a debate coach, but it would stand to reason that any
    rebuttal should include a focus on a critical analysis of my main point;
    good works are NOT in any way, shape or form the Gospel. It can only be
    transmitted via WORDS. The word gospel, by definition means GOOD NEWS!
    You know that. You also know that you can’t LIVE news. You can live
    in LIGHT of the good news, but you can’t live news. Your opening line,
    “No offense Jamie, but people like you keep others away from Jesus more
    than you think”, does nothing to refute the initial premise that MT’s
    statement was biblically false. Neither does bringing up evidence which
    shows what a wonderful, loving, caring person she was or how heartless I
    must be for ever thinking otherwise. You may not like it that I
    disagree with MT’s philosophy of the Gospel, but you didn’t disprove
    anything I’m saying with Scriptural backup. However, if you look at her
    other quotes in the light of Scripture you will find that she believed
    in a universal salvation for all people regardless of their beliefs as
    long as their hearts were in the right place. Again, check out this
    and respond directly to this on the basis of her own statements alone in
    the light of the Word, specifically Acts 4:12 and John 14:6. The
    Scripture in support of my statement that the Gospel is only words are
    legion. (Is 52:7, Rom 1:15-16, 10:14-16, 1 Cor 1:17-18, 2:1-5, 2Tim
    4:1-2………..) Your use of James 1:27 and 2:14 only serves to
    reinforce what a truly saved person will act like, not as a means to
    salvation. Saved people DO sin, I am not advocating the position that
    they don’t. But a saved person will have a changed life.
    was not lovey dovey all the time either. Read Matthew 23 and count how
    many times He says either blind guides or hypocrites. He told Peter,
    “Get behind me Satan”. He threw out the money changers. He told the
    adulterous woman at the well to go and sin no more. Certainly, He loved
    all these people but if He was relying on His meek and mild actions to
    draw followers, He didn’t do that very well. To add to this, even the
    ones that He was closest to were chosen by Him, they didn’t choose Him
    (John 15:16). In the end, the very crowds that He ministered to, fed
    and comforted called for his crucifixion.
    The following is the true message of the Gospel. I give this because there may be some reading this that have never heard it.
    is just. God is Holy. That is a good thing but it also poses a
    problem. (Is 5:16, Lk 18:19) What does He do with us? What does a
    Holy God do with us when we have all turned aside, we are all wicked?
    (Rom 3:12,23) We have sinned against Him, we have sinned against each
    other and in fact we are BORN in sin. He can’t simply pardon us because
    then He wouldn’t be just. (Num 14:18) We deserve hell because of this.
    the cross of Christ, we find the answer. In that cross God atoned for
    the sin of all who would believe in Him by paying the penalty that we
    could have never paid. He satisfies God’s justice and wrath so that we
    don’t have to pay the penalty. Jesus Christ became our substitute, not
    simply providing us with the virtue needed to live good life. Living a
    good life would have never done it. In reality, His righteousness was
    imputed to us while we were still sinners and now we can stand before
    Him clean with our debt cancelled. Not only that, but it actually
    PLEASED God to crush His own Son for this very purpose, because He loved
    us so much. (Is 53:10)
    He was on the cross, He said, “It is finished” (Jn 19:30). That means
    that the debt was paid in FULL and He did all that was required. Death
    itself was conquered when on the third day He rose from the dead and now
    sits at the right hand of the Father. Because He lives, we can live
    might ask (and constantly do ask) if this could have been accomplished
    by any other means or by another person. The answer is a thousand times
    NO! (Acts 4:12, John 14:6, 1 Tim 2:5) No one can come to the Father
    except through Christ. He is THE way, THE truth, THE life. There is
    only ONE mediator, and that is Jesus Christ. Ironically, even
    Christopher Hitchens made this statement, albeit without belief.
    does all this happen? Does it happen through saying a prayer, or going
    to church or doing good things? No. We are called to repent and
    believe in Christ’s atonement for our sins. We must recognize that
    there is absolutely nothing in ourselves that can contribute to our
    salvation and it is all of Him.
    calls all men to repent. That is the ONLY way. (Acts 17:30)
    Repenting literally means to change one’s mind, but it’s much more than
    that. It is a complete change of attitude, of desire, of will. When
    the apostle Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus, he left a completely
    changed man. (Acts 9) He started down the road anticipating to kill
    Christians and after his conversion he spent the rest of his life being
    persecuted for the very thing he originally hated. That is true
    repentance. Mark 1:15 also says that we need to repent and believe the
    Gospel. We must completely submit to who He is, admit to who we are,
    and the sins we once loved we will now hate, the holiness we once
    ignored we will now desire.
    that mean we never sin again? Absolutely not. We will still sin
    unfortunately. But, once God has caused us to be born again (John 3)
    our lives will change and we will begin to hate our sin more and more.
    (Rom 6:1-2). We will CONTINUE unto repentance if we truly believed, and
    that is the evidence that our conversion was real.
    real Christian will not live in a continuous state of sin because Phil
    1:6 says that He who began a good work in you will be faithful to
    complete it. This is not works as a means of salvation. Just the
    opposite. It is the evidence of salvation. One of the greatest
    evidences of conversion is that God will even discipline those whom He
    loves. (Heb 12:6)
    is the biblical Gospel, and it’s the only one there is. It not only
    deals with the penalty of sin, it deals with the problem of sin. You’ll
    notice that none of this can be communicated through deeds, good or
    bad, large or small. You can’t act it out or somehow transmit it to
    others by having them see your good works. It has to be communicated
    through words alone that all come from one single source of infallible
    propositional truth; our Bible. Sola Scriptura. Scripture alone.
    is a long post and is not intended to stir up quarrels with fellow
    believers. It is not intended to be snarky and is submitted humbly.
    However, we are to contend for the faith (Jude 1:3) and this is
    extremely important. This is not a secondary issue of evangelistic
    technique; it’s the ONLY issue there is. To God be the glory!

    Joel Anderson

    • Joel, it took me 9 minutes to expose your long-winded error. Stop reading conspiracy sites. Here’s what I posted in response to your FB post above…

      Chris Jeub
      Please know that I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. I’m entertaining
      the idea that maybe you are right, Mother Teresa was a heretic. You tend
      to be a bit wordy and you go off topic, but I’ll check out the website
      you shared, http://www.solasisters.com/2011/07/mother-teresa-in-her-own-words.html
      Sola Sisters: Mother Teresa In Her Own Words http://www.solasisters.com
      39 minutes ago · Like

      Chris Jeub
      These are some pretty radical claims. Mostly hearsay. “Someone heard Mother Teresa said such-and-such.” Not very convincing.
      38 minutes ago · Like

      Chris Jeub
      I tried validating the claims of what Sola Sisters said Mother Teresa
      actually said. Tried google searching the exact quotes. Nothing. Sola
      Sisters are leaving no hyperlinks or footnotes.
      37 minutes ago · Like

      Chris Jeub
      If a debater ran this as evidence in a tournament, they’d be disciplined
      for cheating. Joel, this is a fraudulent site. You’re choosing to
      believe what you want to believe.
      36 minutes ago · Like

      Chris Jeub
      Oh, and take a look at the hyperlinks it does list. Links to more conspiracy drivel.
      31 minutes ago · Like

      Chris Jeub
      Look up Toulmin Model, study it, and learn a thing or two about the art of
      persuasion. This so-called evidential site is a Catholic-bashing,
      conspiratorial gossip site. I’m getting angry as I try to take you
      seriously, Joel, because it is people like you who spread vile hatred
      around the Internet.
      31 minutes ago · Like

      Chris Jeub
      You, Joel, are choosing to believe what you want to believe, and it is
      wrong. Consider yourself duly corrected: Your strawman of Mother Teresa
      is false, you have been corrected, and you ARE stirring up quarrels. AND
      you’re using God’s word to justify the vilification of a godly woman
      who has done more good than any self-justification you can dream of from
      behind your wife’s ipad.
      31 minutes ago · Like · 2