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.

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!

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…

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!

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…

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!

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…

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 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.

1. When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent", He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
   
   
2. The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
   
   
3. 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.
   
   
4. 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.
   
   
5. 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.
   
   
6. 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.
   
   
7. God never remits guilt to anyone without, at the same time, making him humbly submissive to the priest, His representative.
   
   
8. The penitential canons apply only to men who are still alive, and, according to the canons themselves, none applies to the dead.
   
   
9. 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.
   
   
10. It is a wrongful act, due to ignorance, when priests retain the canonical penalties on the dead in purgatory.
    
    
11. When canonical penalties were changed and made to apply to purgatory, surely it would seem that tares were sown while the bishops were asleep.
    
    
12. In former days, the canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution was pronounced; and were intended to be tests of true contrition.
    
    
13. 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.
    
    
14. Defective piety or love in a dying person is necessarily accompanied by great fear, which is greatest where the piety or love is least.
    
    
15. 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.
    
    
16. There seems to be the same difference between hell, purgatory, and heaven as between despair, uncertainty, and assurance.
    
    
17. Of a truth, the pains of souls in purgatory ought to be abated, and charity ought to be proportionately increased.
    
    
18. 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.
    
    
19. 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.
    
    
20. 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.
    
    
21. 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.
    
    
22. Indeed, he cannot remit to souls in purgatory any penalty which canon law declares should be suffered in the present life.
    
    
23. 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.
    
    
24. 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.
    
    
25. 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.
    
    
26. 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).
    
    
27. 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.
    
    
28. 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.
    
    
29. 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).
    
    
30. No one is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much less of receiving plenary forgiveness.
    
    
31. One who bona fide buys indulgence is a rare as a bona fide penitent man, i.e. very rare indeed.
    
    
32. All those who believe themselves certain of their own salvation by means of letters of indulgence, will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.
    
    
33. 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.
    
    
34. For the grace conveyed by these indulgences relates simply to the penalties of the sacramental "satisfactions" decreed merely by man.
    
    
35. 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.
    
    
36. Any Christian whatsoever, who is truly repentant, enjoys plenary remission from penalty and guilt, and this is given him without letters of indulgence.
    
    
37. 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.
    
    
38. Yet the pope's remission and dispensation are in no way to be despised, for, as already said, they proclaim the divine remission.
    
    
39. 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.
    
    
40. 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.
    
    
41. 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.
    
    
42. 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.
    
    
43. 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.
    
    
44. 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.
    
    
45. 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.
    
    
46. 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.
    
    
47. Christians should be taught that they purchase indulgences voluntarily, and are not under obligation to do so.
    
    
48. 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.
    
    
49. 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.
    
    
50. 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.
    
    
51. 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.
    
    
52. 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.
    
    
53. 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.
    
    
54. The word of God suffers injury if, in the same sermon, an equal or longer time is devoted to indulgences than to that word.
    
    
55. 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.
    
    
56. The treasures of the church, out of which the pope dispenses indulgences, are not sufficiently spoken of or known among the people of Christ.
    
    
57. 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.
    
    
58. 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.
    
    
59. 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.
    
    
60. 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.
    
    
61. For it is clear that the power of the pope suffices, by itself, for the remission of penalties and reserved cases.
    
    
62. The true treasure of the church is the Holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
    
    
63. It is right to regard this treasure as most odious, for it makes the first to be the last.
    
    
64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is most acceptable, for it makes the last to be the first.
    
    
65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets which, in former times, they used to fish for men of wealth.
    
    
66. The treasures of the indulgences are the nets which to-day they use to fish for the wealth of men.
    
    
67. The indulgences, which the merchants extol as the greatest of favours, are seen to be, in fact, a favourite means for money-getting.
    
    
68. Nevertheless, they are not to be compared with the grace of God and the compassion shown in the Cross.
    
    
69. Bishops and curates, in duty bound, must receive the commissaries of the papal indulgences with all reverence.
    
    
70. 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.
    
    
71. Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.
    
    
72. On the other hand, let him be blessed who is on his guard against the wantonness and license of the pardon-merchant's words.
    
    
73. In the same way, the pope rightly excommunicates those who make any plans to the detriment of the trade in indulgences.
    
    
74. 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.
    
    
75. 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.
    
    
76. 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.
    
    
77. 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.
    
    
78. 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].
    
    
79. 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.
    
    
80. 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.
    
    
81. 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.
    
    
82. 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.
    
    
83. 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?
    
    
84. 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.
    
    
85. 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?
    
    
86. 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?
    
    
87. Again: What does the pope remit or dispense to people who, by their perfect repentance, have a right to plenary remission or dispensation?
    
    
88. 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.
    
    
89. 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?
    
    
90. 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.
    
    
91. 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.
    
    
92. Away, then, with those prophets who say to Christ's people, "Peace, peace," where in there is no peace.
    
    
93. Hail, hail to all those prophets who say to Christ's people, "The cross, the cross," where there is no cross.
    
    
94. Christians should be exhorted to be zealous to follow Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hells.
    
    
95. And let them thus be more confident of entering heaven through many tribulations rather than through a false assurance of peace."

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)

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.

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)

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).

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

» 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 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.

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.  

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.

Okay, so this is not exactly a tweet, but it’s close. It is hard to communicate anything of consequence given the limitation of 140 characters, so we’ll expand that limit to 140 words.

******************

Despite 2,000 years of teaching the doctrines of grace, it is amazing how many professing Evangelicals still cannot represent them accurately. Simply stated:

Total Depravity. Man—through and after the fall—is unable and unwilling to choose what is morally right in any given circumstance apart from God’s grace.

Unconditional Election. Those undeserving individuals upon whom God freely and unconditionally bestowed salvation by grace through faith.

Limited Atonement. Christ’s sacrifice for the sheep (John 10:11), those whom the Father gave Him (17:2, 6, 24).

Irresistible Grace. The effective application of the Holy Spirit’s working within God’s chosen people to bring about regeneration.

Perseverance of the Saints. The manifestation of the covenant between the Godhead that Christ will loose none whom the Father has given Him and will raise them up at the last day.

» On Evangelizing Catholics...And Other Things
James White spoke at the Omaha Bible Conference in which he covered topics including Roman Catholicism, Justification, Antinomianism, and Legalism to name just a few.

» Caption Contest Winner
The Human Events caption contest solicits witty phrases for posted pictures. See this week's winner.

» The Biggest News You Haven't Heard
"How do you reconcile the early snow in Minneapolis, ski resorts already opening in Nevada, and that August chill in North Dakota with expert warnings about a warming climate? You don’t. Why? The Earth isn’t warming right now, is why. It may even be cooling down somewhat.

 » Muslims Make Up 25% of the World's Population
"The global Muslim population stands at 1.57 billion, meaning that nearly 1 in 4 people in the world practice Islam, according to a report Wednesday billed as the most comprehensive of its kind...The project, three years in the making, also presents a portrait of the Muslim world that might surprise some. For instance, Germany has more Muslims than Lebanon, China has more Muslims than Syria, Russia has more Muslims than Jordan and Libya combined, and Ethiopia has nearly as many Muslims as Afghanistan."

» Climbing Out of the Mire
"Our souls cannot climb out of the mire of sin because they are dead. Salvation comes not to those who cry out, 'Show me the way to heaven,' but to those who cry, 'Take me there for I cannot.'"

The other day I came across a bumper sticker which read:

"The last time we mixed politics with religion people got burned at the stake."

No doubt some village wit thought this was a clever statement and would make a sale—after all, he made at least one. Now while one might surmise several general characteristics about the person who rides around with such a bumper sticker, of greater concern is the message itself, because it is misleading and outrageously biased.

With that said, however, while it is true that there have been abuses in the name of God, it does not necessarily follow that the perpetrators were somehow being faithful to their religious tenets. For instance, the Crusades rightly remain at the forefront of any discussion of great examples of religious perversion within Christendom. Fought over the course of nearly two centuries, the bishop of Rome perpetrated wars against Muslims, pagans, Jews, Eastern Christians and other political foes—all of this in stark contrast to the commands of Christ and the purity of the apostolic message. So when rulers act contrary to the truth as revealed in God’s Word, the fault lies solely with the perpetrators and is not somehow a tacit admission of a flawed religion. One must also remember that abuses committed in the name of Christianity are more directly in line with atheistic presuppositions, not Christian ones. After all, upon what basis can the atheist object to immorality? He cannot. He must first borrow the idea of ultimately truth, right and wrong, from the Christian worldview, and then use that to attack the God of Christianity.

Nevertheless, let’s just consider for a moment what happens when religious principles, or more specifically, Judeo-Christian principles, are cast aside in favor of atheistic ones. What happens when politicians eliminate the Judeo-Christian influence from political considerations? In America, we have seen first hand the result. First and foremost there is the murder of the unborn through the open and lauded practice of infanticide, all in the name of "choice". Then, there is the increase of violence in homes, in the streets, and in the classroom. (should we be surprised? Just look at the T.V. shows, movies, music, and video games...)Third, there is the rise of the militant homosexual agenda with its perverted behavior, which the Bible tells us is contrary to nature. Finally, there is the growing exploitation of the wealth of the nation through political greed. All of these can rightly be condemned by the Christian because of his or her worldview. Can the atheist? Can the atheist truly criticize any one of these acts? The answer of course is no. While the atheist might not like violence, greed, or whatever, he has no rational or consistent basis upon which to object--but the Christian does. The Christian has an ultimate truth to which he or she can appeal for what is right and what is wrong, and that absolute standard is God.

Those who do not care to think critically about what they are saying and are only looking for ways to insult the Judeo-Christian religion should reassess the reality of the pernicious effects the atheistic worldview has already had upon our country after the dismissal and elimination of the Moral Law of God as summarized in the Ten Commandments.

And just for the record, if the reference on the bumper sticker had in mind Salem, Massachusetts, here is a bit of historical fact. Burning witches never actually took place in the United States. Even during the notorious Salem witch trials of 1692, 19 accused witches were executed by means of hanging at Gallows Hill. Giles Corey was the 20th; he was crushed to death with stone weights. It is believed that 13 other accused witches died in jail.

Okay, so this is not exactly a tweet, but it’s close. It is hard to communicate anything of consequence given Twitter's limitation of 140 characters, so we’ll expand that limit to 140 words.

******************

As I was listening to a lecture on the will, there was one verse cited that provoked some reflection concerning human freedom. When Jesus commanded "Lazarus, come out," (John 11:43) could Lazarus have done otherwise? For the Arminian who gravitates towards the libertarian view of the will, that is, the idea that a moral agent must always be able to choose to the contrary in any given situation, he must answer in the affirmative—Lazarus could have resisted the command of Christ. But think, for just a moment, what this means to the Arminian. Consider how this view is not only an abomination to the character of God, it relegates Christ’s will subservient to the will of man. To say Lazarus could have chosen to remain in the tomb is to strip God of His sovereignty—all to protect "free-will".

"And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only" (Mark 2:4–7)?

Ruth Graham, the third child of Evangelist Billy Graham, made a recent appearance on FOX News in which she spoke candidly about her "messy" life—all of which is detailed in her new book, In Every Pew Sits a Broken Heart. One’s heart goes out to Ms. Graham as she honestly shares a broken life redeemed by the grace of God, but one phrase of particular that caught my attention during that interview caused for me concern. That is, Ruth Graham talked about how it "was really hard to forgive myself." She is not the first person to coin this phrase. In fact, the concept behind such man-centered language is quite popular.

Self-forgiveness is a concept that millions are being taught to incorporate into their thinking, vocabulary, and life experience. Even some evangelical leaders are teaching the idea of "accepting yourself as a human who has faults and makes mistakes," and exercising "the act of self-love after you have admitted your failure, mistake, or misdeed." I believe, however, that such language is destructive for two reasons: it fails to label our actions for what they truly are—sins, and more importantly, the Bible teaches that only God can forgive sin.

Charles Manson long ago "forgave himself" for the murders he committed and for the various and sundry other crimes perpetrated at his instigation. Conversely, Martin Luther attempted self-forgiveness through extreme self-denial and physical and mental tests, including self-flagellation, but ultimately realized all human endeavors were bankrupt and could not bring about peace. Luther rightly understood that anyone who lives with a violated conscience, and in some way attempts to forgive himself or herself for the injurious behavior he or she has engaged in, that alone will not bring about conciliation of the soul. The augustinian monk could never find a biblical justification for such a concept, and it would not be until his eyes were opened to the grace of God as expounded in Romans that Luther finally understood peace. 

The Bible calls upon people to repent of sin. It further commands people to turn from their wicked ways; that is, after all, what repentance includes—more than just "feeling sorry". But nowhere in the Bible do I find people forgiving themselves. Listen to the words of the "chief of all sinners" when he wrote, "I am crucified [dead] with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2:20). The love of God and the grace of God is what forgives sin. All we can do is receive God’s grace and love and humbly say, "thank you."

"Thank you Lord, for saving my soul.
Thank you Lord, for making me whole.
Thank you Lord, for giving to me,
Thy great salvation,
So rich and free."

We would all do well not to think in terms of self-forgiveness for therein is great danger and more self-centeredness. Turn your eyes upon Jesus; look full in His wonderful face. Receive His mercy and grace and then go, and sin no more.

If you were to ask 10 different people, "What Reformed books should I read?" I’m sure you will receive 10 different answers. Everyone has his or her own favorite author or recommended reading list, and I am no exception. The below books are the ones that I have found to be particularly helpful in understanding the doctrines of grace—and in learning objections to God’s sovereignty. While this list is by no means exhaustive, it will prove useful for those who enjoy reading books online.

12. The History and Character of Calvinism, by John Thomas McNeill
A comprehensive history of the Calvinist movement. This is a masterful historical portrait of the whole movement of Calvinism for general readers and scholars alike.

11. An Antidote Against Arminianism, by Christopher Ness
From the author’s preface: "…When I had completed this short compendium I showed it to Dr. John Owen, Mr. Nicholas Lockier, and Mr. George Griffith, who all unanimously approved of it and wrote an epistle commendatory to it, subscribing it with all their three hands, which is too large here to insert, but the truth of the premises I do hereby affirm."

10. Lectures on Calvinism, by Abraham Kuyper
Dutch theologian, Abraham Kuyper, delivered this series of lectures at the Princeton Theological Seminary in 1898. Over the course of the lectures, he discusses Calvinism and the way it pertains to many aspects of life including politics, science, and art. According to Kuyper, Calvinism has a natural affinity for scientific investigation, because like scientific inquiry, Calvinism seeks to unify the cosmos under universal laws. Predestination, he says, proves that a set of laws exist to govern the world, and science is merely trying to figure them out.

9. John Wesley, by John Wesley, Albert Cook Outler
A major figure in eighteenth-century Christianity, John Wesley sought to combine the essential elements of the Catholic and Evangelical traditions and to restore to the laity a vital role in church life. He began one of the most dynamic movements in the history of modern Protestantism, a movement which eventually produced the Methodist churches. This volume offers a representative selection of theological writings with special emphasis on Calvinism starting on page 425.

8. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, by Roger E. Olson
Roger Olson describes classical Arminian theology as understood through the ages, and how it might fit into the church today (written from an Arminian perspective).

7. The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel, by James Montgomery Boice, Philip Graham Ryken
Two respected pastors make a compelling case for the need to recover the five fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith.

6. The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented, by David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas
To understand how and why the system of theology known to history as Calvinism came to bear this name and to be formulated in five points, one must understand the theological conflict which occurred in Holland during the first quarter of the seventeenth century.

5. All of Grace, by Charles H. Spurgeon
It would be impossible to do justice to this short, well-articulated work by Charles Haddon Spurgeon. It is, without a doubt, one of the greatest non canonical treatises ever penned. With no unmerited terms Spurgeon lays out the understanding of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Through his great and passionate love for his Savior and with his desire to see his fellow sinners come to Christ, Spurgeon brings forth on every page and in every phrase of this marvelous book the clear and concise action of the Gospel. It is brought forth to his readers with clear illustrations and well-placed anecdotes that describes for the sinner his desire for them to get right with the most high God.

4. The Sovereignty of God, by Arthur W. Pink
One of the classic works on Predestination and the Sovereignty of God is this book.

3. Martin Luther on the Bondage of the Will, by Martin Luther, Rev. Henry Cole
Luther's treatise is a must for anyone who is interested in the fundamental doctrines of the Reformation with particular interest in justification by faith alone. "The Bondage of the Will" is a brilliant and captivating discourse to Erasmus of Rotterdam against his treaty on free-will called "The Diatribe on Free-will." In his writing, which has stood the test of time, Luther affirms man's total inability to save himself and the sovereignty divine grace in our salvation. Luther infallibly demonstrates why man's will is totally enslaved to sin and that the term and belief of free-will is completely meaningless.

2. Chosen by God, by R. C. Sproul
From the author of The Holiness of God comes this scriptural, understandable explanation of the classic doctrine of predestination.

1. Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, by John Calvin, John Kelman Sutherland Reid
Originally published in 1552 to counteract the criticisms and contrary views being taught by others, this work shows Calvin rigorously defending his position. Readers will witness Calvin masterfully arguing his points, wrestling with the scriptures, and fully engaged in the rough-and-tumble polemical world of sixteenth-century theological debate.

This edition features a superb introduction by translator J.K.S. Reid, which sets the work in its historical context and provides a responsible analysis of Calvin's views.

» The Gospel Driven Life
A book review of Michael Horton's most recent publication..."What exactly is Christianity, and what are its proper and necessary effects on our daily lives? According to Horton, Christianity is not pietism, social activism, personal transformation, or religious experience, it is first and fundamentally gospel–'good news'..."

» Forbidding Marriage
TurretinFan explores the ancient error of forbidding marriage by the office holder and cites how the practice of requiring those who wish to have office in the church to be celibate is wrong...

» Performance Artist
Phil Johnson critique's Rob Bell's use of the term evangelical..."Bell says, 'For many, the word has nothing to do with a spiritual context.' Well, yeah, OK. I suppose that's part of the problem. More precisely, the term evangelical has been systematically evacuated of any reference to its historic doctrinal roots. People today therefore feel free to assign it any meaning they fancy—religious or non-religious..."

» Just for Fun
Friday Funnies! from Reformed and Loving It...

» Planning for Victory
"Will your family impact the kingdom of God? Will your children serve the LORD faithfully with their lives? Will the legacy you leave be remembered for generations to come? Without a strategic plan to accomplish any of these endeavors, we can ALL safely assume that the answer to these questions will be a resounding NO!..."

Last week I posted a blog on the doctrine of the Carnal Christian, which expressed my concern with how this doctrine is being handled in some theological circles and fundamentalist pulpits.

I made a summary statement towards the end in which my comments were elliptical and should have been more fully devolved. Specifically, I wrote, "The Bible knows of no such thing as a carnal Christian." What I meant to say in summary and in keeping with the thrust of the blog is that, "The Bible knows of no such thing as a carnal Christian as presented by Mr. C. I. Scofield and many of our dispensational brethren." In other words, there are not three kinds of men in the world but two, the saved and the lost. Those who profess to be saved must not think they can live like a "heavenly devil" (to coin a phrase) and consistently express a carnal or fleshly walk as Paul defines the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-21. "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." No, no. The professing Christian must seek to mortify or put to death the works of the flesh and for a good reason. Romans 8:13 explains. "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."

It is true, however, that a Christian can struggle with indwelling sin. Listen to Paul as he cries in Romans 7:14–15, "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I."

But I would suggest that we do not stop there. Read on as Paul exclaims in emotional agony, yet with the hope of spiritual triumph, "O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin" (Rom. 7:24–25).

Any system of theology that allows a professing Christian to live in known sin without remorse, without change, without sorrow and without conviction and then says such a person is born again but merely acting like a carnal man or fleshly babe has yet to understand the nature of conversion. So my concerns with the carnal Christian doctrine theory as presented by the advocates of Scofield and others remain.

"For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: that no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness" (1 Thess. 4:3-7).