Bondage of the Blog

Abortion and the Christian Response

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:51:00 CST

In 1973 the United States Supreme Court reached a seminal moment in the history of this nation when they sanctioned the practice of infanticide while providing legal justification for its implementation. More than 35 years later, the issue is just as hotly contested and debated throughout the US as it was when the decision was first rendered.

One woman who championed this “constitutional right” -- discovered two centuries after the ratification of our founding document -- was Abby Johnson. Abby worked as the director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas where her duties included running the family planning and abortion programs. For nearly eight years she escorted women from their cars into the clinic where a doctor would perform an abortion for a fee of $350 -- that being a normal part of her job. But then something unexpectedly happened. Last September, Abby was asked to be in the room during a procedure -- something that had never happened before -- and she watched as the doctor performed an abortion in which she witnessed a baby “crumple” as it was vacuumed from the mother’s uterus.

One can only begin to imagine how seared the conscience must be for anyone to be able to violate the very premise upon which this country was founded, that is, the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, and engage in the systematic murder of the unborn without regard for the sanctity of life. It is a chilling reminder of what mankind is capable of doing without regard for others if not for God removing the heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh (cf. Ezek 36:26). But for Abby, the blatant deprivation of life was too great to bear. As she explained it in an interview with FoxNews, she questioned the morality of her livelihood. Abby said that after seeing a sonogram abortion her conscience was violated. "I just thought, 'What am I doing?'" she said. "And then I thought, 'Never again.'"

Abby quit her job two weeks later and joined a pro-life organization because of what she called, “a definite conversion in my heart….a spiritual conversion.”

It took the sobering event of witnessing an abortion for Abby to reach the conclusion that such practices are profoundly immoral. Unfortunately, though, it seems as if Christians are increasingly accepting this practice as the norm. How so? A growing number of Evangelicals (among others) are going to the voting booth and choosing candidates who champion the right to abort a baby while justifying it based upon “more pressing issues”.

I would suggest to you, however, that the there is nothing more pressing than upholding the sanctity of life. There is no single greater political issue than the preservation of all human beings. After all, is that not the government’s chief role? Is not the government instituted by the people and for the people?

There is a sense that progress has been so slow and we have gone too far to turn back now. A new generation has been raised up under the inculcation of liberal ideology and under the impression that terminating life is the inalienable “right” of a woman. The question is simply this: Are we going to capitulate to evil and let this country continue slouching towards Gomorrah or will we protest vociferously where we can and when we can, but more importantly, will we continue to elect politicians who continue to let this issue fester?

How many lives must be forfeited until we realize the abomination of murdering babies far outweighs any of the other social or political interests we might hold? How many more children have to die before Christians realize that life is more important than what some politician promises them? The Christian must cast his vote on the right side of life, because in the final analysis, the moral issue is the most serious issue.

The Consequence of Religious Pluralism

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:06:00 CST

Tolerance. Multiculturalism. Diversity. Religious pluralism. Ecumenism. Each of these terms is ubiquitous in today’s vocabulary and each gives the impression of unselfish regard for others and their beliefs. While this undoubtedly sounds very noble, the problem, however, is that more often than not, when someone uses one of the listed terms it is generally in a context that is anything but tolerant or diverse of opinion. Specifically, when the issue of religion is discussed, an alarming number of people are under the impression that all—or at least many—religions are generally the same. Steve Turner, writing in his Nice and Nasty wrote humorously about the obvious contradictions, "We believe that all religions are basically the same, at least the one we read. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation."

Americans of all walks of life are becoming increasingly tolerant of the beliefs of others according to a recent poll. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found more than 70% of respondents agreed that "Many religions can lead to eternal life." But what is more troubling is that 57% were self-described evangelical Christians, a clear indication of a paradigm shift within our cultural and within our churches.

In the final analysis, our churches must shoulder a considerable amount of responsibility for the rampant theological chaos. What we are witnessing today is merely the consequence of a generation that has failed to provide foundational teaching from God’s Word and Scriptural reasoning against the onslaught of attacks from theological liberals who deny the inspiration of Scripture and those who surrender to notions of religious pluralism. All too often, churches have reduced their doctrinal statements and teachings to the lowest common denominator for two reasons: to attract the masses and to appease the majority. But in so doing, they only serve to hurt everybody. The unbelievers and unlearned never mature in the faith and are deprived of the substance of the gospel message. Furthermore, the orthodox faithful are never grounded in solid truth and are vulnerable and ill equipped to face the bombardment of attacks against the faith.

The only antidote against this is to return to the truth of God’s Word. Christians should not be embarrassed or think it archaic to subscribe to the faith that was once delivered to the saints. Attacks from within and outside the church are nothing new. The apostles themselves were constantly contending against worldly influences. The only remedy the Christian has is to be grounded in the truth of Scripture in order to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within him. Apart from this, the Christian will be left weakened and susceptible to the vacillating doctrines of man-centered thinking.

A Christian Perspective on Theistic Evolution

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:13:00 CST

Richard Dawkins first gained prominence in 1976 with the publication of his The Selfish Gene, a book that popularized the gene-centric view of evolution. Since that time, Britain’s influential academic has published works excoriating religion in general and Christianity in particular with such books as The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design and The God Delusion, just to name a few. It is in the latter that Dawkins cites a survey taken of members of the National Academy of Sciences in which they were asked if they believe in God. Only 7 percent reportedly answered "yes". This survey, Dawkins argues, is statistical proof that intelligent scientific thinking inevitably leads to one conclusion—there is no God, an often-repeated theme throughout the corpus of his writings.

Answering the challenge to this new breed of atheists is Timothy Keller, founder and pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. In his New York Times bestseller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, Keller responds to the more common platitudes against Christianity, while at the same time attempting to muster a seemingly intellectually progressive view of Christianity—including the belief that science and Genesis are compatible. That is to say, Keller does not see a disjunction between theistic evolution and the biblical account of creation. Keller tells us that he believes the first chapter is a "song about the wonder and meaning of God’s creation," while the subsequent chapter deals with how creation happened. Therefore, Keller attempts to reconcile scientific explanations of creation with the Bible. He writes, "For the record I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as All-encompassing theory." In other words, according to Keller, the Christian can rightly maintain that the God of the Bible used a process of natural selection whereby more complex forms evolved from less complex forms and not fall outside of the pale of orthodoxy.

But is this truly the case? Is such a view tenable? Is theistic evolution a rational possibility or is it merely a conceptual absurdity? I ask this because it seems that all too often Christians forget to ask the simple, yet foundational question: does theistic evolution violate the nature of God? That is to say, when we consider God and His attributes, does evolution comport with the revealed understanding of God or are Christians simply attempting to reconcile God’s Word with an anti-Christian philosophical worldview in hopes of being accepted by academic elites who hate the very thought of God anyways?

Oftentimes, the debate centers on discussion about how one should interpret Genesis (allegorically, poetically, historically, etc.), or if Jesus and Paul believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. While these are indeed valid arguments and are in need of clear representation and articulation, I would submit to you that the Christian who believes in theistic evolution must first answer how it is that God could create a world in which lesser creatures who were unfit for survival mutated or progressively evolved into higher forms in a world replete with death and disease prior to Adam’s sin. It is a logical impossibility for the Christian to maintain the belief that God can create imperfectly. Just as God cannot both be God and not be God, cannot create an equal, and cannot limit His own power, it would be a violation of God’s nature as a logical and rational Being—and therefore an irrational impossibility—to say that God could created an imperfect system that required change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to another. Genesis records that when God created He did so—and it was very good. Furthermore, Paul tells us that sin entered the world through Adam (Rom 5:12) and that death came as a result of his sin, and not that unspeakable death and destruction preceded the first man in the Garden.

It is incoherent and absurd to think that God could produce a defective creation in which death and mutations were necessary in order to bring a finished product to fruition. If more Christians thought critically about the nature of God and understood He must out of necessity act in accordance with His own nature, they would arrest such notions as reconciling godless worldviews with Scripture. Moreover, if the Christian has no apprehension about believing in a worldwide deluge, a sea parting to let the Hebrew people pass through safely, a virgin birth, the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the death, burial, and physical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, upon what basis, then, does the Christian find himself reluctant to believe in a literal rendering of the Genesis account of creation? The Christian focus should be upon the one paramount verse in the biblical account which reads: "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good" (Gen 1:31). When God creates, He does so according to His nature—perfect and very good.

The Blind Scottish Preacher

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:47:00 CST

Two of the all time most beloved devotional books are arguably L. B. Cowman’s Streams in the Desert and Oswald Chamber’s My Utmost for His Highest. Together, these works have proved to be a tremendous source of encouragement, comfort, and hope—each bringing the truth of the gospel through pithy daily devotions. The former is a compilation of writings by well-known preachers, theologians, and authors to include Charles Spurgeon, Andrew Murray, A. B. Simpson, and Hannah Whitall Smith, just to name a few. Today’s devotion comes from Philippians 3:7.

***********

"Whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ" (Philippians 3:7).

When George Matheson, the blind Scottish preacher, was buried, they lined his grave with red roses commemorating his life of love and sacrifice. And it was Matheson, this man who was so beautifully and significantly honored, who wrote the following hymn in 1882. It was written in five minutes, during a period he later called "the most severe mental suffering," and it has since become known around the world.

O Love that will not let me go,
I rest my weary soul in thee;
I give thee back the life I owe,
That in thine ocean depths its flow
May richer, fuller be.

O light that followest all my way,
I yield my flickering torch to thee;
My heart restores its borrowed ray,
That in thy sunshine’s blaze its day
May brighter, fairer be.

O Joy that seekest me through pain,
I cannot close my heart to thee;
I trace the rainbow through the rain,
And feel the promise is not vain,
That morn shall tearless be.

O Cross that liftest up my head,
I dare not ask to fly from thee;
I lay in dust life’s glory dead,
And from the ground there blossoms red
Life that shall endless be.

There is a legend of an artist who had found the secret of a wonderful red that no other artist could imitate. He never told the secret of the color, but after his death and old wound was discovered over his heart. It revealed the source of the matchless hue in his pictures.

The moral of the legend is that no great achievement can be made, no lofty goal attained, nor anything of great value to the world accomplished, except at the cost of the heart’s blood.

Odds and Ends (11/6/09)

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:35:00 CST

» 10 Million Words
What is 10 million words? 10 Million Words is a newly lauched website by Tim Challies in which he reviews all New York Times bestselling books. Challies writes that "it is a year-long project...to learn about life and culture through the lens of all of America's bestselling books." It is also an excellent reference tool for book reviews penned from a Reformed Christian perspective.

» Guarding the Unknown Soldiers
An amazing event that every one should witness at the tomb of the unknown soldier in Arlington National Cemetery.

» Government Health Care = Monthly Abortion Premiums?
Included in the 2,032 page Democratic health care bill is a provision in which federal funds will be used to pay for elective abortions. GOP leader, John Boehner, writes: monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan. It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under "Insurance Rating Rules."

» "Allahu Akbar!"
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan went on a killing spree this week in which he murdered 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas and wounded nearly three dozen others. His final words were purportedly, "Allahu Akbar!"--an Arabic phrase for "God is great!"

» NewsNote: The Hypersocialized Generation
"Jeffery Zaslow of The Wall Street Journal opens his article with the story of a 17-year-old boy sent to the vice principal's office after being caught sending text messages in class. The vice principal, Steve Gallagher, told the boy to pay attention to the teacher, not to his cellphone. Even as the boy nodded politely, Gallagher noticed something amiss -- the boy was texting about his discipline for being caught texting."

Reclaiming the Culture

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:44:00 CST

There is within the human heart of many a desire to avoid conflict. This axiom is especially true of Christians who are called "sheep" in Scripture and are commanded to live peaceably with all—as much as possible (Rom 12:18). Because of a natural inclination to avoid conflict many Christians are also unwilling to engage the world in any manner. Some Christians, such as the Amish, withdraw from the world in order to live peaceably among themselves, remembering the words of the apostle John who commanded, "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever" (1 John 2:15-17).

But there are other biblical commandments that must also be considered and honored such as those instructions from our Lord to go into the entire world and to make disciples (Matt 28:19-20). There are multitudes of ways this command can be carried out practically. One way Christians can make disciples is by aggressive witnessing. Another way to make disciples is by living a godly example. Yet a third way to make disciples for Christ and transform society is for Christians to utilize their natural gifts and talents for the glory of God. That is to say, the janitor should have the cleanest building possible; the soldier should be the very best he can be for God and country; and the artist should use the artistic ability to communicate a message that will bring glory to God while touching the mind.

I recently met one such artist who accomplished just that. Her name is Lisa Mistiuk. In an email she shared her excitement about serving God in which she stated, "Painting is what the Lord's given me to do, and I'm bursting with curiosity about how He's going to use it—it would be an honor to have my work used for Redeeming Grace Ministries."

I certainly appreciate Lisa’s willingness to help in the work of the ministry for there is much to be done. But the larger point is that Lisa is setting about as a young person to help transform the world and reclaim a part of the culture for Christ through the gift the Lord has given to her—painting (here).

Reclaiming the culture for Christ politically, socially, and spiritually should be the stated objective of every born again Christian—no matter what service God has called us to perform. When life is over and the day arrives in which we must stand before the Holy God of the universe to give an account for our actions, we better be prepared to say with all certainty that in everything we did, in eating and in drinking, we did it for the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31).

Outline of Genesis

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:52:00 CST

Bible outlines are useful tools for any student of God’s Word and are helpful aids in understanding characteristics and themes of a particular book. Discerning the main points an author is communicating through the use of an outline provides greater clarity when studying Scripture, generates a quick reference for finding key thoughts, provides a repository for topical passages, and facilitates the believer’s memory in providing a summary of the books of the Bible. The below outline is the first in a series of 66 outlines.

(Click each link to read the associated Bible passages.)

***********

OUTLINE OF GENESIS

I. Prologue: Creation of Heaven and Earth (1:1–2:3)

A. The First Day (1:3–5)

B. The Second Day (1:6–8)

C. The Third Day (1:9–13)

D. The Fourth Day (1:14–19)

E. The Fifth Day (1:20–23)

F. The Sixth Day (1:24–31)

G. The Seventh Day (2:1–3)

II. Account of Heavens and Earth (2:4–4:26)

A. Adam and Eve in the Garden (2:4–25)

B. The Fall of Mankind and Its Consequences (3:1–24)

C. Cain and Abel (4:1–24)

D. God Preserves a Remnant (4:25–26)

III. From Adam to Noah (5:1–6:13)

A. The Descendents from Adam to Noah (5:1–32)

B. The Wickedness of Man During Noah’ Time (6:1–13)

IV. Noah and the Flood (6:9–9:29)

A. God’s Instructions to Noah (6:14–7:4)

B. Noah’s Obedience, the Flood and Salvation (7:5–8:19)

C. God’s Covenant with Noah (8:20–9:17)

D. Noah’s Descendents (9:18–29)

V. Noah’s Sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth (10:1–11:26)

A. The Table of Nations (10:1–32)

B. The Tower of Babel (11:1–9)

C. Shem’s Descendents (11:10–26)

VI. The Account of Terah and His Descendents (11:27–25:11)

A. Genealogy (11:27–32)

B. The Abrahamic Covenant: His Land and People (12:1–22:19)

               1. The Call of Abram (12:1–9)
               2. Abram and Sarai in Egypt (12:10–20)
               3. Abram and Lot Separate (ch. 13)
               4. Victory Over the Eastern Kings (ch. 14)
               5. God’s Covenant with Abram (ch. 15)
               6. Hagar and Ishmael Rejected (ch. 16)
               7. God’s Covenant Confirmed (ch. 17)
               8. Sarah to Have a Son (18:1–15)
               9. Lot’s Rescue from Sodom (18:16–19:38)
               10. Abraham and Abimelech (ch. 20)
               11. Birth of Isaac and Blessing in the Land (ch. 21)
               12. The Sacrifice of Isaac (22:1–19)

C. Transition to Isaac (22:20–25:11)

                1. Rebekah’s Family Background (22:20–24)
                2. Death of Sarah (ch. 23)
                3. Isaac’s Marriage to Rebekah (ch. 24)
                4. Isaac the Sole Heir (25:1–6)
                5. Death of Abraham (25:7–11)

VII. The Generations of Ishmael (25:12–18)

VIII. Isaac (25:19 – 35:29)

A. The Births of Jacob and Esau (25:19–26)

B. Esau Sells His Birthright (25:27–34)

C. God’s Promise to Isaac (ch. 26)

D. Jacob’s Steals Esau’s Blessing (27:1–40)

E. Covenant Blessings on Jacob and His Exile (27:41–32:32)

                  1. Jacob Sent to Laban (27:41–28:9)
                  2. Jacob’s Dream (28:10–22)
                  3. Jacob’s Marriage to Leah and Rachel (29:1–30)
                  4. Jacob’s Children (29:31–30:24)
                  5. Jacob’s Prosperity and Flight from Laban (30:25–31:55)
                  6. Encounter with Angels at Mahanaim and Peniel (ch. 32)

F. Esau’s Reconciliation with Jacob (33:1–17)

G. Transition to Jacob: Itinerary and Deaths from Shechem to Mamre (33:18–35:29)

IX. Esau (36:1–37:1)

X. Jacob (37:2–50:26)

A. Joseph’s Dream (37:2–11)

B. Joseph Sold by His Brothers into Slavery (37:12–38:30)

C. Joseph’s Rise to Rulership over Egypt (chs. 39–41)

                 1. Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife (ch. 39)
                 2. Joseph Interprets Two Prisoner’s Dreams (ch. 40)
                 3. Joseph Interprets Pharaoh’s Dreams (41:1–36)
                 4. Joseph’s Rise to Power (41:37–57)

D. Joseph’s Ruse and the Reconciliation of the Covenant Family (chs. 42–45)

                 1. Joseph’s Brothers Go to Egypt (ch. 42)
                 2. Joseph’s Brothers Return to Egypt (ch. 43)
                 3. Joseph Tests His Brothers (ch. 44)
                 4. Joseph Provides for His Family (ch. 45)

E. Transition to Exodus (chs. 46–50)

                 1. Joseph Brings His Family to Egypt (46:1–27)
                 2. Jacob and Joseph Reunited (46:28–34)
                 3. Preservation in Goshen (ch. 47)
                 4. Jacob’s Blessings on the Twelve Tribes (48:1–49:28)
                 5. Jacob’s Death and Burial in Canaan (49:29–50:14)
                 6. Joseph’s Mercy Towards His Brothers (50:15–21)
                 7. The Death of Joseph in Egypt (50:22–26)

Rock of Ages

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 07:17:00 CST

Augustus Toplady's untitled poem which later became the basis for the hymn Rock of Ages remains a key reminder of the necessity and sufficiency of Christ's work on the cross at Calvary. Its simple yet elegant message inspires many and continues to appeal to those who love to sing about justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Sir William Henry Wills records in a letter to Dean Lefroy, published in the [London] Times in June, 1898, that "Toplady was one day overtaken by a thunderstorm in Burrington Coombe, on the edge of my property, Blagdon, a rocky glen running up into the heart of the Mendip range, and there, taking shelter between two massive piers of our native limestone rock, he penned the hymn,

Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee.

There is a precipitous crag of limestone a hundred feet high, and right down its centre is the deep recess in which Toplady sheltered."

***********

Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee;
Let the water and the blood,
From Thy wounded side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure;
Save from wrath and make me pure.

Not the labor of my hands
Can fulfill Thy law’s demands;
Could my zeal no respite know,
Could my tears forever flow,
All for sin could not atone;
Thou must save, and Thou alone.

Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to the cross I cling;
Naked, come to Thee for dress;
Helpless look to Thee for grace;
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Savior, or I die.

While I draw this fleeting breath,
When mine eyes shall close in death,
[originally When my eye-strings break in death]
When I soar to worlds unknown,
See Thee on Thy judgment throne,
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee.

Luther: A Soul in Search of Salvation

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:00:00 CDT

Throughout history God has been pleased to use men and women to preserve and communicate His Word. One such man was Martin Luther. Luther was training to be a lawyer when he found himself one day in the midst of a lightening storm. Terrified he was going to die Luther cried out, "St. Anne, help me! I will become a monk."

The storm passed and Luther survived the moment. But he remembered his vow and forsook law to enter the Augustinian monastery. In the years ahead Luther would witness many abuses within the Roman Catholic Church which disturbed his soul to the point that he took pen in hand and challenged others to a debate on such issues as the true meaning of repentance, the place of penance, indulgences, purgatory and papal authority.

Little did he know that when he nailed his document containing 95 Theses for discussion on the castle door of Wittenberg, Germany on October 31, 1517 he was about to strike a spark that would set the world on fire. But there was no turning back.

Luther would cry out forever against religious charlatans such as Friar John Tetzel who was selling indulgences on behalf of the pope. Changing his message from town to town according to the wealth of the citizens, Tetzel promised people they could do a very good deed by contributing the building of what would become St. Peter's basilica in Rome. Moreover, they could help to get people out of purgatory for, "When ever a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs!" Luther was outraged.

If the pope had so much authority over purgatory, said Luther, why doesn't he just open the door and let everyone out? Moreover, man was not to do penance as the Latin vulgate had translated the word's of Christ, but rather, as Erasmus' Greek New Testament had shown, Jesus called for a change of heart and mind.

Luther did not appreciate the concept of cheap grace in part because he had once struggled long and hard to understand the nature of God's redeeming mercy. Luther had performed many acts of penance until the Holy Spirit revealed to him the true nature of conversion.

As a young monk who had taken seriously his vows and the matter of salvation Luther had struggled with how to please God and find favor in His sight. Luther thought that he had to earn or deserve the merit's of Christ. But how? He would work very hard to please the Father. With that goal in mind Luther began the quest to secure his soul's salvation by good deeds and mortification of the flesh.

Luther would flagellate himself until his skin was raw. He would sleep on the floor in his cell with out a blanket until he was chilled to the bone. He would spend hours confessing sins--both known and those committed in ignorance.

The earliest woodcuts of Luther show his face emaciated, his cheeks hollow, his eyes sunken. He was a scrupulous monk. "If ever a monk could have gotten to heaven by his monkery, it was I" Luther was later to recall. And yet for all of this and more, Luther found no peace with God. Luther was always asking himself, "Am I cold enough? Am I hungry enough? Have I confessed enough? How much is enough to please God?

He did not know and would have to learn more. "I did not learn my theology all at once," he said. "I had to follow where my temptations led me. It is not by reading or writing or speculating that one becomes a theologian. It is rather living, dying and being damned that makes one a theologian. "

In time, Luther would become a theologian as he poured over the Scriptures while engaging in personal and pastoral studies. One day he came to Psalm 22: 1 and read the words, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Luther knew that these were the words which Jesus cried from the Cross. Luther wondered how the Father could forsake His Son and how the Son could feel what he himself had felt, abandoned and forsaken by God. Luther then came to Romans 1 where the apostle Paul quotes the words of the ancient prophet Habakkuk in verse 17: "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."

Suddenly, the Holy Spirit illuminated the heart of Luther concerning "the righteousness of God. " The "righteousness of God" was not the basis upon which God condemned the world and punishes the unrighteous, as Luther has always understood that verse. The "righteousness of God" was the basis on which God justified those who lived by faith, because of Christ, apart from good works and self earned merit! "I felt as if the gates of paradise had opened and I had entered in. " wrote Luther "It was as if I had gone from the darkest midnight into the midday sun. I felt as if I had been born again. "

The Reformation was born out of Luther's insight into the graciousness of God. He believed that all people should be able to take the Word of God into their own hands and read it with their own eyes. The man at his plough, the woman at her well, as well as the scholars in the university should have access to the Bible.

With that in mind Luther offered to the German people a translation of the Bible in their own language. Luther had great respect for the writings of the Church council's but he believed the Bible was God's word and should be the final authority of life and practice. "The Bible is God's word clad in human words" he taught. "Just as Christ, the eternal word is incarnate in the garments of His humanity. Christ lies in the crib of the Scriptures, wrapped in swaddling clothes."

Alongside of the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone a second principle of the Reformation takes its place, the ultimate authority of the Bible alone. Unfortunately the Catholic Church did not agree with these foundational principles. On 18 April 1521 Luther was brought before the Emperor Charles V to renounce his teachings. This was his reply:

"Since your majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason-I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for the have contradicted each other--my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right not safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me. Amen. "

From that time on there was no hope that the division in the church would be healed. Soon the cry for Reformation was being heard all over Europe.

Justification: The Heart of the Matter

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:13:00 CDT

The answer to the question "what must I do to be saved?" proved to be the cardinal issue during the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation. Luther stated the doctrine of justification by faith alone is the article upon which a church stands or falls. Similarly, Calvin weighed in on the subject and stated that justification is the hinge upon which everything turns. Today, however, the dividing line between those who still maintain the decisive factor in one’s theology is the sole merit of Christ’s perfect righteousness as the basis for one’s standing before God against others who insist justification is no longer a major theological issue is growing at an alarming rate.

There was once a time when Evangelicals were fully convinced of the preeminence of justification by faith alone and all the "solas" of the Protestant Reformation, namely, sola Scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus, and soli deo gloria! That is to say, when Scripture was used as the foundation of all doctrine, especially when discussing the issue of justification, the Reformers were convinced that their understanding of sola fide would be vindicated in that man’s forensic (or legal) declaration of "not guilty" before God is solely due to grace alone, received through faith alone, in the work of Christ alone—glory to God alone.

It seems today as if Protestantism abounds with people who seemingly have forgotten what exactly Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and countless others were actually protesting. Ecumenical movements are increasingly popular with people of all different stripes and backgrounds continuously seeking to come together for the sake of "unity" and are attempting reconciliation at the expense of conviction. The problem with ecumenism, however, is that each side must continually give up the distinctives that defined their respective positions and each side must then attempt to reach a point where both sides can agree—usually by invoking some nebulous phrases that do not really say much. Two such examples are the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church and Evangelicals and Catholics Together, a 26-page document outlining a list of "agreements" between Roman Catholics and Protestants. One practical problem with such statements is that each must reinterpret the language and meaning that each side has understood and embraced historically. For instance, when the former declaration agreed that, "We confess together that persons are justified by faith in the gospel ‘apart from works prescribed by the law,’" each side interprets that statement in a different context and the Roman Catholic would inevitably qualify that statement. The casual reader might gloss over the words and think that both sides have reached harmony after five centuries of dispute. The truth, however, is something far greater. The Reformation disagreement was never over the necessity of grace and faith—that much both sides agree upon—but rather, over the sufficiency of grace.

Rome anathematized the sufficiency of grace as understood by the Protestants when they crafted the formulations at the Council of Trent where they unequivocally condemned their theological opponents:

Canon 9:

"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to the obtaining [of] the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."

Canon 14:

"If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema."

The question for the modern day believer is: Has Rome changed her position on these fundamental issues? The answer is a resounding, no. Vatican II upheld the position espoused at Trent, and the new Catechism of the Catholic Church reiterated the anathema on anyone who maintains the gospel of justification by an imputed righteousness. So the theological disputes that separated the catholic Evangelicals during the sixteenth century remain just as valid and important today; the differences are equally authentic today as they were in the sixteenth century. It’s time we recognize why the differences really matter—because the purity of the gospel message is at stake today, just as it was during the first century when the Judaizers attempted to add human effort to the apostolic message of grace.

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8–9).

The truth of the gospel message is that God saves men freely according to His grace. Adding anything to Christ’s finished work violates God’s revealed truth. For the Reformers, the real issue, the heart of the debate, was the doctrine of justification—the central issue that should keep us separated from anyone who tries to add human works to the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross, even if those works are purportedly performed while in a state of grace. So yes, there are still differences and they are important—theology matters. Soli deo gloria!

The Reformation Polka

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:38:00 CDT

A Reformation day song:

(Link provided here to YouTube page)

Reformation Polka
(to the tune of supercalifragilisticexpialidocious):

When I was just ein junger Mann I studied canon law;
While Erfurt was a challenge, it was just to please my Pa.
Then came the storm, the lightning struck, I called upon Saint Anne,
I shaved my head, I took my vows, an Augustinian! Oh…

Chorus:
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

When Tetzel came near Wittenberg, St. Peter’s profits soared,
I wrote a little notice for the All Saints’ Bull’tin board:
“You cannot purchase merits, for we’re justified by grace!
Here’s 95 more reasons, Brother Tetzel, in your face!” Oh…

They loved my tracts, adored my wit, all were exempleror;
The Pope, however, hauled me up before the Emperor.
“Are these your books? Do you recant?” King Charles did demand,
“I will not change my Diet, Sir, God help me here I stand!” Oh…

Chorus:
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation -
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

Duke Frederick took the Wise approach, responding to my words,
By knighting “George” as hostage in the Kingdom of the Birds.
Use Brother Martin’s model if the languages you seek,
Stay locked inside a castle with your Hebrew and your Greek! Oh…

Let’s raise our steins and Concord Books while gathered in this place,
And spread the word that ‘catholic’ is spelled with lower case;
The Word remains unfettered when the Spirit gets his chance,
So come on, Katy, drop your lute, and join us in our dance! Oh…

Out of Love and Concern for Truth: Luther's 95 Theses

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:12:00 CDT

When Martin Luther, the Augustinian Doctor of Theology, posted his Ninety-Five Theses in the Latin language on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany on the eve of All Saints in 1517, he was merely inviting scholarly debate. In so doing, Luther was not denying the veracity of indulgences, but rather, he was writing against the abuse of vendors, namely, the Dominican Tetzel who manipulated the masses through the selling of indulgences. He coerced many into purchasing documents guaranteeing remission of sin by using such phrases as, "Pity us, pity us. We are in dire torment from which you can redeem us for a pittance." And, "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs."

For Luther, there were three main issues with Tetzel and the selling of indulgences. The late Reformation scholar Roland Bainton explains Luther's Theses focuses on three main points: "an objection to the avowed object of the expenditure, a denial of the powers of the pope over purgatory, and a consideration of the welfare of the sinner." Thus, it is apparent from Luther's own writing that at the time of posting the Theses his chief concern was the abuse of indulgences and not the concept thereof.

Anyone looking to Luther’s document hoping to find any of the Protestant tenets might be disappointed. There is nothing particularly Reformed in his Theses. There is no mention of the doctrine of justification, no discussion of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, no language commenting on the doctrines of grace, nor is there any indication of the idea of sola Scriptura—all of those biblical concepts had yet to fully germinate in the mind of Luther. It would take time before Luther came to realize that the entire system of indulgences was antithetical to Scriptures. Eventually, he wrote condemningly of the system: "indulgences are not a pious fraud, but an infernal, diabolical, antichristian fraud, larceny, and robbery, whereby the Roman Nimrod and teacher of sin peddles sin and hell to the whole world and sucks and entices away everybody’s money as the price of this unspeakable harm."

Historians mark October 31, 1517 as the start of the Protestant Reformation. So in honor of that pivotal moment in history, here are Luther’s Theses—the words that sparked the movement to recover the purity of the apostolic message that had been lost in medieval Christianity.

"Out of love and concern for the truth, and with the object of eliciting it, the following heads will be the subject of a public discussion at Wittenberg under the presidency of the reverend father, Martin Luther, Augustinian, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and duly appointed Lecturer on these subjects in that place. He requests that whoever cannot be present personally to debate the matter orally will do so in absence in writing.

When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent", He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
Yet its meaning is not restricted to repentance in one's heart; for such repentance is null unless it produces outward signs in various mortifications of the flesh.
As long as hatred of self abides (i.e. true inward repentance) the penalty of sin abides, viz., until we enter the kingdom of heaven.
The pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties beyond those imposed either at his own discretion or by canon law.
The pope himself cannot remit guilt, but only declare and confirm that it has been remitted by God; or, at most, he can remit it in cases reserved to his discretion. Except for these cases, the guilt remains untouched.
God never remits guilt to anyone without, at the same time, making him humbly submissive to the priest, His representative.
The penitential canons apply only to men who are still alive, and, according to the canons themselves, none applies to the dead.
Accordingly, the Holy Spirit, acting in the person of the pope, manifests grace to us, by the fact that the papal regulations always cease to apply at death, or in any hard case.
It is a wrongful act, due to ignorance, when priests retain the canonical penalties on the dead in purgatory.
When canonical penalties were changed and made to apply to purgatory, surely it would seem that tares were sown while the bishops were asleep.
In former days, the canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution was pronounced; and were intended to be tests of true contrition.
Death puts an end to all the claims of the Church; even the dying are already dead to the canon laws, and are no longer bound by them.
Defective piety or love in a dying person is necessarily accompanied by great fear, which is greatest where the piety or love is least.
This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, whatever else might be said, to constitute the pain of purgatory, since it approaches very closely to the horror of despair.
There seems to be the same difference between hell, purgatory, and heaven as between despair, uncertainty, and assurance.
Of a truth, the pains of souls in purgatory ought to be abated, and charity ought to be proportionately increased.
Moreover, it does not seem proved, on any grounds of reason or Scripture, that these souls are outside the state of merit, or unable to grow in grace.
Nor does it seem proved to be always the case that they are certain and assured of salvation, even if we are very certain ourselves.
Therefore the pope, in speaking of the plenary remission of all penalties, does not mean "all" in the strict sense, but only those imposed by himself.
Hence those who preach indulgences are in error when they say that a man is absolved and saved from every penalty by the pope's indulgences.
Indeed, he cannot remit to souls in purgatory any penalty which canon law declares should be suffered in the present life.
If plenary remission could be granted to anyone at all, it would be only in the cases of the most perfect, i.e. to very few.
It must therefore be the case that the major part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of relief from penalty.
The same power as the pope exercises in general over purgatory is exercised in particular by every single bishop in his bishopric and priest in his parish.
The pope does excellently when he grants remission to the souls in purgatory on account of intercessions made on their behalf, and not by the power of the keys (which he cannot exercise for them).
There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.
It is certainly possible that when the money clinks in the bottom of the chest avarice and greed increase; but when the church offers intercession, all depends in the will of God.
Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed in view of what is said of St. Severinus and St. Pascal? (Note: Paschal I, pope 817-24. The legend is that he and Severinus were willing to endure the pains of purgatory for the benefit of the faithful).
No one is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much less of receiving plenary forgiveness.
One who bona fide buys indulgence is a rare as a bona fide penitent man, i.e. very rare indeed.
All those who believe themselves certain of their own salvation by means of letters of indulgence, will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.
We should be most carefully on our guard against those who say that the papal indulgences are an inestimable divine gift, and that a man is reconciled to God by them.
For the grace conveyed by these indulgences relates simply to the penalties of the sacramental "satisfactions" decreed merely by man.
It is not in accordance with Christian doctrines to preach and teach that those who buy off souls, or purchase confessional licenses, have no need to repent of their own sins.
Any Christian whatsoever, who is truly repentant, enjoys plenary remission from penalty and guilt, and this is given him without letters of indulgence.
Any true Christian whatsoever, living or dead, participates in all the benefits of Christ and the Church; and this participation is granted to him by God without letters of indulgence.
Yet the pope's remission and dispensation are in no way to be despised, for, as already said, they proclaim the divine remission.
It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, to extol to the people the great bounty contained in the indulgences, while, at the same time, praising contrition as a virtue.
A truly contrite sinner seeks out, and loves to pay, the penalties of his sins; whereas the very multitude of indulgences dulls men's consciences, and tends to make them hate the penalties.
Papal indulgences should only be preached with caution, lest people gain a wrong understanding, and think that they are preferable to other good works: those of love.
Christians should be taught that the pope does not at all intend that the purchase of indulgences should be understood as at all comparable with the works of mercy.
Christians should be taught that one who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does a better action than if he purchases indulgences.
Because, by works of love, love grows and a man becomes a better man; whereas, by indulgences, he does not become a better man, but only escapes certain penalties.
Christians should be taught that he who sees a needy person, but passes him by although he gives money for indulgences, gains no benefit from the pope's pardon, but only incurs the wrath of God.
Christians should be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they are bound to retain what is only necessary for the upkeep of their home, and should in no way squander it on indulgences.
Christians should be taught that they purchase indulgences voluntarily, and are not under obligation to do so.
Christians should be taught that, in granting indulgences, the pope has more need, and more desire, for devout prayer on his own behalf than for ready money.
Christians should be taught that the pope's indulgences are useful only if one does not rely on them, but most harmful if one loses the fear of God through them.
Christians should be taught that, if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence-preachers, he would rather the church of St. Peter were reduced to ashes than be built with the skin, flesh, and bones of the sheep.
Christians should be taught that the pope would be willing, as he ought if necessity should arise, to sell the church of St. Peter, and give, too, his own money to many of those from whom the pardon-merchants conjure money.
It is vain to rely on salvation by letters of indulgence, even if the commissary, or indeed the pope himself, were to pledge his own soul for their validity.
Those are enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid the word of God to be preached at all in some churches, in order that indulgences may be preached in others.
The word of God suffers injury if, in the same sermon, an equal or longer time is devoted to indulgences than to that word.
The pope cannot help taking the view that if indulgences (very small matters) are celebrated by one bell, one pageant, or one ceremony, the gospel (a very great matter) should be preached to the accompaniment of a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
The treasures of the church, out of which the pope dispenses indulgences, are not sufficiently spoken of or known among the people of Christ.
That these treasures are not temporal are clear from the fact that many of the merchants do not grant them freely, but only collect them.
Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, because, even apart from the pope, these merits are always working grace in the inner man, and working the cross, death, and hell in the outer man.
St. Laurence said that the poor were the treasures of the church, but he used the term in accordance with the custom of his own time.
We do not speak rashly in saying that the treasures of the church are the keys of the church, and are bestowed by the merits of Christ.
For it is clear that the power of the pope suffices, by itself, for the remission of penalties and reserved cases.
The true treasure of the church is the Holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
It is right to regard this treasure as most odious, for it makes the first to be the last.
On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is most acceptable, for it makes the last to be the first.
Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets which, in former times, they used to fish for men of wealth.
The treasures of the indulgences are the nets which to-day they use to fish for the wealth of men.
The indulgences, which the merchants extol as the greatest of favours, are seen to be, in fact, a favourite means for money-getting.
Nevertheless, they are not to be compared with the grace of God and the compassion shown in the Cross.
Bishops and curates, in duty bound, must receive the commissaries of the papal indulgences with all reverence.
But they are under a much greater obligation to watch closely and attend carefully lest these men preach their own fancies instead of what the pope commissioned.
Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.
On the other hand, let him be blessed who is on his guard against the wantonness and license of the pardon-merchant's words.
In the same way, the pope rightly excommunicates those who make any plans to the detriment of the trade in indulgences.
It is much more in keeping with his views to excommunicate those who use the pretext of indulgences to plot anything to the detriment of holy love and truth.
It is foolish to think that papal indulgences have so much power that they can absolve a man even if he has done the impossible and violated the mother of God.
We assert the contrary, and say that the pope's pardons are not able to remove the least venial of sins as far as their guilt is concerned.
When it is said that not even St. Peter, if he were now pope, could grant a greater grace, it is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.
We assert the contrary, and say that he, and any pope whatever, possesses greater graces, viz., the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as is declared in I Corinthians 12 [:28].
It is blasphemy to say that the insignia of the cross with the papal arms are of equal value to the cross on which Christ died.
The bishops, curates, and theologians, who permit assertions of that kind to be made to the people without let or hindrance, will have to answer for it.
This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult for learned men to guard the respect due to the pope against false accusations, or at least from the keen criticisms of the laity.
They ask, e.g.: Why does not the pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter's church, a very minor purpose.
Again: Why should funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continue to be said? And why does not the pope repay, or permit to be repaid, the benefactions instituted for these purposes, since it is wrong to pray for those souls who are now redeemed?
Again: Surely this is a new sort of compassion, on the part of God and the pope, when an impious man, an enemy of God, is allowed to pay money to redeem a devout soul, a friend of God; while yet that devout and beloved soul is not allowed to be redeemed without payment, for love's sake, and just because of its need of redemption.
Again: Why are the penitential canon laws, which in fact, if not in practice, have long been obsolete and dead in themselves,—why are they, to-day, still used in imposing fines in money, through the granting of indulgences, as if all the penitential canons were fully operative?
Again: since the pope's income to-day is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers?
Again: What does the pope remit or dispense to people who, by their perfect repentance, have a right to plenary remission or dispensation?
Again: Surely a greater good could be done to the church if the pope were to bestow these remissions and dispensations, not once, as now, but a hundred times a day, for the benefit of any believer whatever.
What the pope seeks by indulgences is not money, but rather the salvation of souls; why then does he suspend the letters and indulgences formerly conceded, and still as efficacious as ever?
These questions are serious matters of conscience to the laity. To suppress them by force alone, and not to refute them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian people unhappy.
If therefore, indulgences were preached in accordance with the spirit and mind of the pope, all these difficulties would be easily overcome, and indeed, cease to exist.
Away, then, with those prophets who say to Christ's people, "Peace, peace," where in there is no peace.
Hail, hail to all those prophets who say to Christ's people, "The cross, the cross," where there is no cross.
Christians should be exhorted to be zealous to follow Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hells.
And let them thus be more confident of entering heaven through many tribulations rather than through a false assurance of peace."

Religious Worship

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:27:00 CDT

Question 22–1: What does the light of nature reveal about God and our responsibility toward him?

Answer: The light of nature reveals that there is a God, who has lordship and sovereignty over all. He is just and good to all and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the heart, soul, and mind. (a) (b)

(a) Who would not fear you, O King of the nations? For this is your due; for among all the wise ones of the nations and in all their kingdoms there is none like you (Jer 10:7).

(b) "And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices" (Mark 12:33).

Remarks: Many have read the familiar truth in the Reformed catechisms that state positively of man’s chief goal being to glorify God. This axiom is true for everything we do. We have a personal calling to please God just as Christ did with his earthly ministry and subsequent death on the cross. It pleases God when we imitate Christ and his deeds so our focus should be to please God in whatever we do or say.

Question 22–2: Who are we to worship?

Answer: Religious worship is to be given to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit alone. (a) (b) (c) We are not to worship the angels, saints, or any other creatures. (d) (e) (f)

(a) And he said to him, "All these Iwill give you, if you will fall down and worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Be gone, Satan! For it is written, You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve" (Matt 4:9–10).

(b) But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him (John 4:23).

(c) Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19).

(d) Because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen (Rom 1:25).

(e) Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind (Col 2:18).

(f) Then Ifell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, "You must not do that! Iam a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God." For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Rev 19:10).

Remarks: One of the controversies that divide Roman Catholics and Protestants is the relationship between worshipping God (called latria) and venerating Mary (called hyperdulia) and the saints (called dulia). Catholics insist they simply honor or pay devotion to Mary and the saints, while bestowing worship to God. Evangelicals point out that the Bible does not recognize a distinction between the terms dulia and latria in the context of religious worship, nor can a distinction be made lexicographically. Both terms trace back to the biblical usage of divine worship, and therefore no meaningful separation can be made between the two. We serve a jealous God who takes worship seriously—just as Uzzah realized the hard way when the Lord struck him dead (2 Sam 6:3–7).

Question 22–3: How are we to offer our prayers to God?

Answer: Acceptable prayer is to be made in the name of the Son, (a) by the help of the Holy Spirit, (b) and according to his will. (c) It must be made with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith, love, and perseverance. In like manner, corporate prayer must be made in a known language. (d)

(a) Whatever you ask in my name, this Iwill do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, Iwill do it (John 14:13–14).

(b) Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words (Rom 8:26).

(c) And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us (1 John 5:14).

(d) Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say "Amen to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up" (1 Cor 14:16–17).

Remarks: It is remarkable to consider that the God of the universe listens to our prayers. In fact, the Bible teaches us that we should pray and also gives examples with respect to accomplishing this task. Perhaps the best known prayer is the Lord’s Prayer. This brief communication with God serves as the Christian model as instructed by Christ. Included in this prayer are expressions of adoration and praise, confession of sins, thankfulness for God’s goodness, petition for one’s self and for others, and intercession.

Question 22–4: What shall we pray for?

Answer: Prayer is to be made for things lawful and for all sorts of men living or that ever shall live. (a) (b)

(a) First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way (1 Tim 2:1–2).

(b) "Now therefore may it please you to bless the house of your servant, so that it may continue forever before you. For you, OLord GOD, have spoken, and with your blessing shall the house of your servant be blessed forever" (2 Sam 7:29).

Remarks: It is worth noting here that the reason we pray for self and others is because the Lord uses our prayers to fulfill his divine plan. Some often wonder why Reformed Christians pray if God has ordained everything that shall come to pass. To this, the answer would be twofold: God commands us to pray, and God ordains the ends as well as the means to achieve his purpose.

Questions and answers taken from The Essence of the Christian Faith. Click here to request your free copy.

Unintentional Consequences

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:27:00 CDT

The headline was shocking: Single mom watched as son, 2, tried to smother infant, Titusville police say. Woman charged with attempted murder; police call case 'extremely disturbing'. The story was posted on line by Amanda Stratford * FLORIDA TODAY * October 23, 2009.

"Christina McIntyre, 23, was charged Thursday afternoon with attempted felony murder, aggravated child abuse, child abuse and child neglect causing great bodily harm in the incident that occurred Oct. 6. The infant recovered and both children have been turned over to the state Department of Children and Family Services. McIntyre is being held at the Brevard County Jail with no bond allowed. Titusville police arrested McIntyre after she told detectives she watched as the infant struggled and fought for air but did nothing, because she wanted to go back to work and could not afford day care for both children. ‘As a parent, it is unimaginable how anyone could have this motivation,’ said Lt. Todd Hutchinson of the Titusville Police Department. ‘It's extremely disturbing.’"

While I appreciate the reaction of Lt. Hutchinson, I would submit to you that there are several reasons how an incident like this could happen in America and why this "unimaginable" crime is sadly not that unimaginable after all.

First, the natural depravity of the human heart must be understood from a biblical perspective. That is, the ultimate source of evil is inside an individual, according to Jesus Christ. "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies (Matt. 15:18–19). The apostle Paul echoes this poignant reality of the radical depravity of mankind when he writes:

"…There is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Rom. 3:12b–18).

Second, American society cultivates a climate of violence and murder through her own anti-biblical policies. That is to say, it become easier to see the progression of criminalization when the threat of punishment as a deterrent is lacking and habitual offenders are released back into society to wreak their havoc. Additionally, should anyone be surprised in the devaluing of life when countless millions are willing to forfeit the lives of the unborn and write them off as expendable in the name of "women’s choice"? This leads one to wonder: If a mother can terminate the life of her baby any time inside the womb without penalty, upon what basis then should society tell her not to kill her baby after it is born—especially if she wants to go back to work and cannot afford the cost of day care?

Third, American society provides a philosophical rationale and judicial allowance for aberrant behavior. While law enforcement officials rightfully arrested Christina McIntyre for attempted murder, there is every reason to believe she will merely be reprimanded by the courts, evaluated psychologically, compelled to attend parenting classes, and then be given her children back after being released from custody. Someone along the way will remember that she said after being arrested, "I love them."

There are unintentional consequences when a society officially promotes a national lifestyle without proper respect for God, without a fixed Moral Law, and without appreciating the value of prayer in the development of its citizens. A mother standing by idly while her baby is smothered is just one unintentional consequence. A private act is a product of our national shame.

Ida Makes Monkeys of Men

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:55:00 CDT

Once again the misreading of a fossil record has made monkeys out of some of the best and brightest scientists and journalist around the world. Ida, the purported 47 million-year-old fossil described by countless media outlets and scientific intellectuals as the "missing link in human evolution" has been exposed as nothing more than an extinct primate, unrelated to humans (No shock here--read our blog from when the story first broke last May). Malcolm Ritter of the Associated Press writes:

"Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and TV documentary? A publicity blitz called it "the link" that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans. Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction. In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be, says Erik Seiffert of Stony Brook University in New York…Experts agreed."

What does this honest, yet belated, confession mean?

First, it means that those who oppose God, the Bible, and Creationism are as foolish as the Word of God says they are. This will always be the case when individuals suppress the truth of God in their heart and turn to worship the creation more than the Creator (Rom. 1:25).

Second, the latest exposure of the fossil fallacy gives further evidence to the Christian that he can always rely upon the Bible since true science has never contradicted the Word. Whenever there is a conflict between alleged scientific findings and the Bible, the faith of the believer can remain secure in knowing that God, who cannot lie, wrote a Book that has not lied. The original account of creation remains intact. "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). While "science" has demonstrated that it constantly changes, the Word of God abides forever.

Third, the honest rereading of the fossil record testifies to the grace and mercy of God who gives individuals time to repent and to tell the truth. Apart from repentance and turning to the truth, the time comes when God confirms individuals in their unrighteousness as the apostle tell us in Romans.

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whispers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Rom. 8:28-32).

While the new report concerning the so called evolutionary fossil is more likely rooted in a scientific quest for academic accuracy rather than a spiritual quest to give God glorify for creating man, it is still a good report and for that the Christian community can rejoice.

Perhaps someday all this "monkey business" will end. The day may yet come when men will cease trying to find a link between humans and a lower species. After all, it is only a theory of evolution that is being pursued. Christians can continue to hope that the truth of Divine Creationism will be embraced and established in the hearts of those who were originally made in the image of God.

Odds and Ends (10/20/09)

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:54:00 CDT

» Online Bible Institute Graduates
Congratulations to Jose de Leon Vitug, III and Adrian Siron Bartolome who both recently completed all the requisite coursework to achieve certificates in Christian Ministry and Christian History Studies. If you would like information about our certificate studies programs visit us by clicking the link above.

» An Insult to Our Democracy
Lord Acton once wrote, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Watch this video to see a classic example of an individual who has abused the power that has been granted him.

» Benny Hinn: Back in the News
"Miraculous cures for cancer and AIDS, people in wheelchairs getting up and dancing. It's business as usual for Benny Hinn, perhaps the world's most famous, successful and controversial televangelist. Hinn is a faith-healer who almost never grants interviews -- until now."

» The Battle is Over? -- Bishop Spong Exits the Debate
Retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong recently published his manifesto in which he says of the homosexual movement within the church, "The battle is over. The victory has been won. There is no reasonable doubt as to what the final outcome of the struggle will be."

» Book Review: "Counterfeit Gods" by Timothy Keller
"Tim Keller knows how to tell a Bible story. Like The Prodigal God before it, his latest book, Counterfeit Gods is built around them. And every time I read one of those stories, I feel like I am hearing it for the first time."

You Gotta be Dead

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:04:00 CDT

An unknown Sunday school teacher relates the following story. "I was testing the children in my Sunday school class to see if they understood the concept of getting to heaven. I asked them, ‘If I sold my house and my car, had a big garage sale, and gave all my money to the church, would that get me into Heaven?’ ‘NO!’ the children answered. ‘If I cleaned the church every day, mowed the yard, and kept everything neat and tidy, would that get me into Heaven?’ Again, the answer was, ‘NO!’ By now I was starting to smile. Hey, this was fun! ‘Well, then, if I was kind to animals and gave candy to all the children, and loved my husband, would that get me into Heaven?’, I asked them again. Again, they all answered, ‘NO!’ I was just bursting with pride for them. ‘Well,’ I continued, ‘then how can I get into Heaven?’ A five year old boy shouted out, ‘YOU GOTTA BE DEAD.’"

While we smile at the answer of the young boy, he was actually theologically sound. In order to get to heaven "you gotta be dead." Many people believe they are alive spiritually and right with God because they have been baptized as a child, attend church, and perform good works. There are individuals who have not yet died to self righteousness and yet the Bible states very plainly that by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified or declared righteous in the sight of God. "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal 2:16). In the words of the little boy in the Sunday school class, "you gotta be dead." But there is good news. In Christ, those who are dead can live. "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this" (John 11:25–26)?

The great questions come to each of us. "Am I dead to self, sin and self righteousness? Have I believed in Jesus Christ as my personal Savior? Have I stopped depending on my baptism, church, and good works to get me to heaven?"

The little boy was right. "You gotta be dead" in order to live.

A Calvinist's Take On 2 Peter 3:9

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:07:00 CDT

I can still clearly remember the gasps in that Sunday school classroom when the people first discovered that I was—a Calvinist! The look on each of their faces betrayed an obvious sense of disappointment that someone in their midst had the audacity to believe in such an archaic and cruel dogma. After all, who in this day and age truly believes that God is in control of the destiny of His creation, and worse, would admit to it? I had only been attending this small church for several weeks, yet the people thought I was of like mind—but were obviously mistaken.

The teacher sat it stunned silence and was perhaps a bit taken aback by the fact that he even had to defend such an obvious truth, that is, synergism. Finally, he looked at me and stated confidently, "God does not want anyone to perish but wants all to come to repentance." So that was it. End of discussion. Two thousand years of debate overthrown by simply citing 2 Peter 3:9 out of context. Alas, he was not the first to muster this response against the doctrines of grace nor will he be the last. It does seem that many resort to this passage when arguing against Calvinism. The problem, however, is not citing verses per se, but selectively proof-texting verses out of context. It is hard to know whether or not that man ever walked through that passage from Peter’s epistle, but if he had, I am confident that he would have discovered the reality is something far different from his interpretation. Let’s consider the verse:

"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance" (2 Pet 3:9).

Now when we read of God’s patience and not wanting any to perish Peter is simply reminding us that God is benevolent and loving. That is to say, God does not delight in the eternal damnation of His creatures any more so than a father delights in punishing his son. The interpretation, however, that many insist on from this passage is that God is not willing to send anyone to hell. The practical conclusion stemming from this line of thinking is therefore that God does all He can do in order to persuade humans to believe in Him—but leaves the final decision with man.

The image that immediately comes to mind is one of a parent desperately pleading with his child to obey him—just as I witnessed not too long ago at the store. A young mother was frazzled with her unruly children running up and down the aisles. She kept warning that they would be in trouble when they got home, her voice sounding more firm and agitated each time she admonished them. I truly felt pity for her, because she wanted to control her children but was unable. And that is precisely how the Synergist’s view represents God. He is like that parent pleading with His children to obey Him but is unwilling and unable to do anything about it. Is this supposed to uplift the character of God and to make us feel good about the great Sovereign of the universe? Does this truly glorify God? I would submit to you that it does not.

The real controversy in this passage, just as in others such as John 3:16, is the interpretation of universalistic words. That is to say, just as it can be demonstrated that world is used in a myriad of ways by the apostle, the words any and all must be qualified in their immediate context. Let's consider specifically how these two terms are used in Peter’s passage starting with the first phrase of the verse.

The Lord is not slow about His promise. We must here ask: What is the promise to which Peter refers? To answer this question we must look back to verses three and four where we read, "knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation’" (2 Pet 3:3–4). Peter’s words indicate that there were scoffers who denied that Jesus would return to earth. Many mocked the Christian belief that Christ was to return visibly and bodily for His elect. "Where is his coming?" they challenged. Peter responded to this charge by reminding his fellow believers that, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you."

Peter here alludes to the Old Testament prophecy of Habakkuk: "For the vision is yet for the appointed time; it hastens toward the goal and it will not fail though it tarries, wait for it; for it will certainly come, it will not delay (Hab 2:3). Similarly, the author of Hebrews also quotes from this prophecy when he reminds his readers "for yet in a very little while, He who is coming will come, and will not delay (Heb 10:37). The question should then be asked: Why does God delay His return? Is it a matter of indifference or apathy on the part of God?

Peter answers by telling us two things about God, specifically what God is and what God is not. First, God is not indifferent and will keep His promise. And second, that God is patient to us. Now the us of this epistle are the readers, that is those who obtained a like precious faith in and through Jesus Christ (cf. 2 Pet 1:1). The apostle was not teaching universalism but was addressing those elect who believed on Jesus Christ as the Redeemer.

God’s patience in returning lies in His sovereign grace and mercy towards sinners. He is delaying His return so that the unbelievers are given time to repent of their sins. Once the Lord returns there will be no further opportunity to repent and to believe on the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.

Once we understand the context in which the words were written the verse takes on a completely different meaning. That the Lord does not want any to perish is simply another way of stating that the Lord will delay His return until all of the elect have come to believe. So we could say that God has not forgotten about His promise to return, but is purposefully delaying the Second Coming so that all of His people have the opportunity to come to repentance, because He does not wish for any of the elect to perish but for all the elect to repent and to believe.

So returning to the different usage of any and all throughout Scripture, consider some biblical examples of how each can be and has been used. For instance, it was said of John the Baptist that when he preached, "all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins" (Mark 1:5). Similarly, we read that after Peter and John healed the lame man "all men glorified God for that which was done" (Acts 4:21 KJV). Jesus also used this type of language when He told the disciples, "you will be hated by all because of My name" (Luke 21:17).

In each these cases, it is unmistakable that the context in which all is used does not support the belief in all of humanity without exception. Each verse qualifies how the term is to be interpreted—just as the case with 2 Peter 3:9.

All-inclusive words must be carefully examined in context and are not always used in an all-inclusive sense. This is why cross-referencing is important when examining passages to discover what the text actually says. Anyone can take a passage from the Bible and alter the meaning to support a particular theological paradigm. We must have enough respect for God and His Word that we seek to honor Him by properly exegeting the God-breathed Scriptures.

Spiritual Nihilism

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:31:00 CDT

The enemy of our souls is a master at pitting Christians against each other and dividing the body of Christ. One of Satan’s most successful techniques is to have Christians engage in a form of spiritual nihilism, one against another. Anyone who is unaware of the division among professing Evangelicals should look no further than the mega-website YouTube. I cannot even begin to count the hundreds of thousands of diatribes professing Christians have posted railing against notable theologians such as Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, and White to name just a few and calling their salvation into question. What is the justification for such attacks? Disagreements—differences over non-essential elements unrelated to the core of the gospel message.

While it is not wrong to question the specific theology or methodology of any one individual, there is a spirit of engaging in spiritual nihilism. The conclusion one is inevitably left with—after watching some of the more outrageous videos—is that nothing any one of those spiritual figures says is of any consequence, nor should any one of them have a following.

YouTube is not the only source of Evangelical disruption, but it is undoubtedly one of the fastest growing avenues in the internet age used for assaulting the character of other Christians. (Please do not misunderstand what I am trying to say. YouTube is a source of much blessing but also a path for one's destructive agenda.) I can still remember from my youth the attacks against the biggest names in Christendom, namely, Billy Graham. Some of the vilest statements against Graham and his family have come from the pulpit of churches. One minister once stated to me that Mr. Graham is a man to be pitied and prayed for, but he is not to be quoted. Furthermore, I have met others who dismiss the totality of a person’s life and ministry by refusing to publish any of their works or even a small selection of their writings because of minor doctrinal disagreements.

The Word of God stands in judgment upon each and every heart that engages in spiritual nihilism whereby the totality of a person’s ministry is discredited and dismissed. No Christian has learned this spirit of intolerance from studying the life of Christ. In fact, the story is told in two gospel accounts of Jesus criticizing John because he had rebuked someone who was not performing ministry in a way John thought was proper (cf. Mark 9:38-40; Luke 9:49-50).

Nevertheless, it is appropriate to speak up and say something when clear error can lead someone astray as in the case of Paul confronting Peter—because "he stood condemned" (Gal. 2:11). My concern, however, is that in unholy anger, well-meaning individuals will engage in spiritual nihilism by dismissing and denouncing the totality of a person’s life and ministry over an issue that is unrelated to the purity of the apostolic message.

Former President George Bush once called for a kinder, gentler nation. A clarion call for more kindness needs to be heard in the church, for we are not ignorant of Satan’s devices in dividing the body of Christ. As the German Lutheran theologian, Rupertus Meldenius, once penned in a tract on Christian unity in the early seventeenth century: In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.