Happy Reformation Day!

Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences
Commonly Known as The 95 Theses
by Martin Luther

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 to-day which they use to fish for men of wealth.

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.

The Great Lordship Debate

Phil Johnson, blogging at PyroManiacs, has finished his latest series of posts:

How I Got Drawn into the Lordship Debate
The Complete, Canonical List


1. A Word of Personal Testimony
   
2. A New Song in My Mouth
   
3. Should sinners be urged to worship, love, and obey Christ as Lord?
   
4. A Brief Interlude about History and Terminology
   
5. My Short, Eye-Opening Stint as a Youth Pastor
   
6. Meeting John MacArthur
   
7. How Zondervan Acquired The Gospel According to Jesus
   
8. The Aftermath

You'll want to take your time and read them all.

For more on the issue of "lordship salvation," check out Pulpit Magazine's blog.

On Service and Dominion

I would like to briefly consider the seeming paradox believers face as we think about the relationship between being stewards of God’s creation and the palpable disinterest in worldly endeavors that seems a part of the New Testament narrative particularly.

Specifically, I’ve been thinking about Peter’s description of Christians as "sojourners and exiles" (I Peter 2:11). Interestingly, immediately after this passage, Peter moves on to a discussion of civil authority and the obligations, duties and responsibilities of citizenship. So how exactly are we exiles and citizens at the same time, and what holds these two strands together?

Beyond Peter, James says that our life is like a vapor. Christ indicates that His Kingdom is not of this world. Paul says that our citizenship is not of this world, but is in heaven. Our kiddies go to summer camp and sit around the campfire singing ditties like this:

This worlds not my home, I’m just a-passin’ through
My treasures are laid up somewhere beyond the blue
The angel beckons me from heaven’s open door
And I just can’t live at home in this world anymore.

Conversely, we’re told in Scripture that we are to exercise dominion on God’s behalf. "Be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth" was the command given to Adam and Noah, and it hasn’t been revoked. We’re told to go "and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Jesus taught his disciples to pray, "thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on EARTH as it is in heaven." Likewise, we sing "This is Our Father’s World" and we believe that redemption extends as far as the curse is found.

How shall we reason through the paradox? How is that we can exercise dominion while being exiles and sojourners?

First, we must make a distinction between being in and of the world. The word "world" is used in numerous ways throughout scripture, as it is in modern parlance. To think of the world as the created order or as a geographic area, for instance, is different from considering it as an ethical system.

Scripture affirms that God loved the world (John 3:16), the cosmos, and thus sent His Son to perish for its ultimate redemption and glorification (Rom. 8:21). Likewise, Genesis says that God created the world and that everything he saw was "good." In Col. 1 we read of the supremacy of Christ, and His role as creator: "For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him" (v. 16). Christ also sustains all things via His providential hand (v. 17).

Further, in the Bible, men are never saved out of this world, but are recreated in Christ for the purpose of serving Him (Eph. 2:10). Christ’s prayer in John 17 is clear: "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world."

So "the world" as the benevolent gift and creation of God is something that is good, something we should work to restore. But world often has another meaning, too. It is frequently used to represent an ethical system. See the thoughts of Greg Bahnsen discussing Satan as the "prince of this world":

It is quite common for the term "world" to be used, not in a geographic sense, but in an ethical sense…the immoral realm of disobedience…The “world” represents the life of man apart from God and bound to sinful impulses. Thus, when scriptural writers speak of "the world," they often mean the world in so far as it is ethically separated from God...the world is that realm which is dominated by Satan and his standards…[and] must be interpreted [in many passages] as the kingdom of darkness, the city of reprobate man.

So, often in the New Testament when we are given commands about fleeing from worldliness, the command isn’t to retreat into monasticism or pietism, but to keep our minds and hearts from conforming to the wicked ways of "the world," meaning the ethical system characterized by Satan’s standards.

I think a better way to understand the passage in I Peter, however, is simply to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Many of Peter’s readers would have been familiar with the Older Testament and recalled the words of Jeremiah 29. Writing to exiles in Babylon, Jeremiah, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, penned these words:

Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.

Then in verse 10 we read God’s promise, "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place."

There are two things happening here. First, the people could look ahead to a future promise, a future restoration in their home. They had great and wonderful prospects for a future deliverance from exile. Likewise, so do Christians.

At the same time, they didn‘t eschew their responsibilities in history, for it is by God‘s providential hand that they had been placed in their circumstances. The language employed by Jeremiah--"build houses," "multiply there," "seek the welfare of the city"--echoes the language of the Cultural Mandate. It is, in short, the language of dominion.

What ties these two seemingly contradictory ideas together is the Christian understanding of service--or as Peter says in verse 12, having conduct that is honorable and doing good deeds.

Such deeds, empowered by the Holy Spirit, are ultimately blessed by God, who brings a harvest of souls as a result. Christians ultimately have different ideas about dominion than those in "the world." Non-believers make the mistake of assuming that power is simply wielded indiscriminately for personal benefit. Christians, on the other hand, believe that true power and authority stem from a foundation in service.

Think about the example we are to emulate in Christ. Matthew says, "whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:26-28). Paul says that "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: he humbled Himself and became obedient to death." And what was the result of His servanthood? Paul continues: "Therefore god exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name" (Phil. 2:5,9).

So we are to serve. Jesus says we are to seek first the kingdom of God, and ultimately success, or dominion--represented by the visible expansion of God’s Kingdom in every aspect of life--is accomplished by service to God, which is usually accomplished by serving other men and God’s creation.

Consider missionaries headed for an overseas appointment. They are leaving their home to become sojourners and aliens in a foreign. They’re ultimate home is heaven, but they are leaving the comforts of their temporal home behind. They will be subject to the laws of a new land and will learn to speak new languages, adapt where possible to new and strange customs--basically go native, all for the purpose of doing good to others and ultimately proclaiming the excellencies of God (I Peter 2:9). Sitting here in our wealthy and blessed land, we think this the height of spirituality. And yet, we are likewise aliens, in very similar circumstances, and our goal should be to carefully think through how to apply the same principles in our day-to-day lives.

Parenting and the Gospel

As many of you know, my wife, Dawn, and I are in the process of adopting a little girl from China. This will be our first child, so you can imagine how excited we are!

We realize what a tremendous blessing this will be and that our lives will change forever. We also know that our priority, not only as parents, but as believers, is to help lead our daughter to a saving faith in Christ.

One of the things that I'm sure many Christian parents have struggled with is how to present the gospel to their children. We all know that the gospel of Jesus Christ is a fundamental aspect of the Christian family, but where do you start with one so young?

Rob Wilkerson, blogging at Miscellanies on the Gospel, sees this as a crucial task in parenting, especially when it comes to disciplining children:

Not to share the gospel when we discipline our kids is, I believe, to drive them to anxiety and exasperation (Eph. 6:4). If parents discipline without the gospel, they cause both emotional and physical pain to a child, only to offer no spiritual power or hope which can heal the guilt incurred in the emotions and cause the heart to view the pain with thanksgiving.

As for the "how," Wilkerson breaks it down into four parts (and you will want to check out his blog for more detailed descriptions of each):

1. Show them their sin.
   
2. Show them what God says about their sin.
   
3. Show them what God has done about their sin.
   
4. Show them what you are going to do about their sin.

It is my prayer that we are able to raise our daughter in a way that glorifies our Heavenly Father. May God grant us the grace and strength to do so.

* For more on our adoption experience, feel free to visit our family blog.

Christians Should Get LOST

The TV series, that is.

I admit that the Calvinist in me is always intrigued by stories in which the characters struggle to find meaning and purpose behind seemingly random coincidences. It has been my experience that when you really start to pay attention in life, you soon realize that random coincidences simply don't exist. Nothing happens by chance in a universe under the care of a sovereign Creator.

Of course, it goes beyond that. Once you begin to filter through all the garbage that's out there, you find that there are actually a few shows that have redeeming qualities. LOST is one such show.

James DeMar, writing for American Vision, explains why the series has been such a hit and why Christians should pay attention:

LOST has and will affect tens of millions of people in numerous ways during the next few years before the show finally comes to an end. The writers engage the viewer through the use of inordinately involved story telling and multiple tie-ins through various media avenues. ...

... No other show in history has pulled so much from the past and present culture into a weekly TV production. Christians should take note. God calls us to be the "light of the world." If Christians want to be taken seriously and not be thrown into the dustbin of history, we need to start creating meaningful "stuff" through all the different avenues available that captures the unbeliever's attention along with fellow Christians. So often, movies are made or books are written with just Christians in mind. Jesus' message was for the lost of this world along with the believer.

Relate the Bible and God's Word to everyone. I don't believe the creators of LOST expect to save anyone's soul or even care, but it may actually stimulate more people into reading scripture and plant that needed seed more so than Bible thumping, yelling and screaming that we so often see on college campuses. At least LOST doesn't portray Christians as wackos. LOST is a show that engages and intrigues. Why can't Christians do the same?

While I certainly wouldn't call LOST a Christian show, it definitely touches on biblical themes. It is a show to which Christians can relate and one that perhaps could be used with non-believers to begin a discussion about God, faith, relationships, and life in general.

So, if you haven't done so already, get LOST. You'll be glad you did.

Yes, Another Blog

Humorous, random, less focused, disjointed, rambling, muddled...In other words, this new blog will be more like how my mind actually functions:

Lemon Harangue Pie

Check it out!

Is Jesus Lord?

You'd think that question would be a no-brainer for believers. But consider the "no-lordship" position on salvation that is held by some professing Christians. Nathan Busenitz, posting at Pulpit Magazine, calls attention to a particular quote from Zane Hodges, a leading opponent of lordship salvation. Here is a brief excerpt:

Oh how disgraceful for a man to have known the truth and proclaimed the truth and then to deny the truth! He has put the Son of God to an open shame! Well you say, "I guess he's headed for hell, right? I guess he's headed for eternal damnation. He's renounced his Christian faith." Wait a minute. I didn't say that, and neither does the writer of Hebrews. Let me remind you that Jesus said, "I am the bread of life. He that cometh to Me shall never hunger and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst." And He also said, "He that cometh to Me I shall in no wise cast out." ... God's will is that He lose no one (John 6:37-40). He has never lost anyone and He never will! And I grieve because my friend and brother has lost his faith but Christ has not lost him. He has lost his faith, but Christ has not lost him! Do you believe in the grace of God?

Yes, Mr. Hodges, I believe in the grace of God. It is because of that grace that I do not fall away and turn my back on the truth.

Sure, I sin. All Christians do, and we will continue to sin until we are ultimately freed from our sinful nature. But the beauty of God's grace is that He continues to forgive our sin. In fact, Christ's blood covered it once and for all on the cross. That does not mean, however, that we are free to do as we please. We believers who struggle with sin do not accept it as a natural extension of our relationship with Christ. We are pained by the persistence of sin in our lives. We continue to repent of our sin. We strive to live Godly lives - and we do so knowing that it is only by the grace of God that we have not fallen away.

If I were to venture a guess, Mr. Hodges, I would say that your friend was never a true believer in the first place. As you correctly noted, those who come to Christ will never be cast out. But as a Calvinist I believe in the perseverance of the saints. By that I mean that once God has saved a sinner by grace, through faith, that sinner will continue to be saved and show the fruit of his salvation.

This perseverance - or, more appropriately, preservation - is taught clearly in scripture. Ephesians 2:10 says, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Romans 8:29 says, "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." We read in Phillippians 1:6, "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." And Galatians 5:22-23 says that "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control ..." Are those things evident in the life of one who rejects the lordship of Jesus Christ and speaks out against his followers?

So, is Jesus Lord or isn't he? He is Lord in the lives of true Christians, i.e., those who submit to his lordship. Those who don't are proclaiming to the world that their unrepentant, unregenerate souls have no need for a savior. Oh, what a sad position to be in on Judgment Day.

A Healthy Tree Wears Good Fruit

Jesus told his followers, "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have it printed on a t-shirt." Or something like that. Seriously, who knows for sure what Jesus actually said? As long as we let the world know that he's kind of important to us, isn't that enough?

Not since the "My boss is a Jewish carpenter" bumper sticker have Christians been so effective at being salt and light in the world. Now, your t-shirt can be one of the most effective ways to reach the lost.

Just think: with the right kind of Christian apparel, you will be able to...


...spread the Good News...

"Son,
I need you to build a bridge.
Here are all the tools you will need.
See you soon-
Love, Dad"

...lampoon popular culture...


...condense the Gospel into easily recognizable catch phrases...


...and even turn your children into pint-sized evangelists.

"I can do all things"

You can find these and other valuable witnessing tools here.

Remember, what's in your heart isn't as important as what's worn over it. That's what people are going to see. Why take the time to read and understand scripture when someone has already printed the important verses on a t-shirt? Why work so hard to live what you believe when you can just wear it?

Anything Goes

In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking,
But now God knows,
Anything goes!
Good authors too who once knew better words
Now only use four-letter words
Writing prose,
Anything goes!
If driving fast cars you like,
If low bars you like,
If old limbs you like,
If Mae West you like,
Or me undressed you like,
Why nobody will oppose.
When every night the set that's smart is
Intruding in nudist parties in studios,
Anything goes!

---From "Anything Goes"

According to the Times of London, a Church of England priest has continued to officiate as a cleric in spite of his conversion to Hinduism. The Rev. David Hart's diocese renewed his license even though he moved to India, changed his name to Ananda, and serves in a Hindu temple in Thiruvananthapuram, a village in southern India.


Hart, er Ananda, recently published a book entitled "Trading Faith: Global
Religion in an Age of Rapid Change," where he discussed his conversion to
Hinduism. It should also come as no surprise that Hart was a Fellow of the
Jesus Seminar and secretary for the World Congress of Faiths.

In an interview, Mr. Hart said, "I have neither explicitly nor implicitly
renounced my Christian faith or priesthood." However, in his capacity as
Hindu priest, Hart daily blesses a congregation of about 60 with fire that
has previously been offered to Nagar, the snake god.

Hart believes his move will "be read in the spirit of open exploration and
dialogue which is an essential feature of our shared spirituality." "My
philosophical position is that all religions are cultural constructs," he
said. "I am acting out God's story in local terms." Nothing like diving headlong into a stew of theological relativism.

I know that I should probably critique the unbiblical, heretical view
of God on display; that I should point out the flaws in his soteriology, parse his
syncretism, and harp on his gross violations of God's holy and perfect law. Clearly his epistemological foundations are in need of challenge. But I'm going to resist those urges and in the spirit of Elijah (see I Kings 18), will resort to a bit of sarcasm instead.

When I read this news item, all I could think of was "The Simpson's"
episode entitled "Homer the Heretic," where Homer rejects Christianity. At
one point, he is discoursing with Apu at the local Quickie Mart. Seeing a
statue of Ganesha in the "employee lounge," Homer chides Apu:

Homer:
"Hey, Ganesha. Wanna peanut?"

Apu:
"Please do not offer my god a peanut."

Homer:
"No offense Apu, but when they were handing out religions, you musta been
out taking a whizz"

So true. But even worse are the "Christians" who allow such idolatry from their own clergy.

Joel Osteen: The Pandering Prophet

Joel Osteen was in the People's Republic of Massachusetts last week hawking his book "Your Best Life Now: 7 Steps to Living at Your Full Potential."

You can almost picture the scene, can't you? Here is a blurb from the Boston Herald:

In Boston yesterday, more than 400 fans - most of them fawning females - lined up to meet Osteen at a book signing at the Prudential Center’s Barnes & Noble. Only a visit by former President Bill Clinton drew a bigger crowd, book store employees said.

Osteen and his pretty, blonde wife, Victoria, sold out the TD Banknorth Garden last night with their two-hour worship service, which fetched $10 a ticket. The couple’s visit came a month after controversial faith healer Benny Hinn came to the Hub.

If you've been paying attention for the last several years, you may be aware that the homosexualist assault on marriage is quite advanced in Massachusetts. Hence, a visit from the "most popular preacher in the country" was bound to elicit some discussion of the Christian position on "gay marriage."

When asked about gay marriage, Osteen said "I don’t think it’s God’s best. I never feel like homosexuality is God’s best."

That antiseptic response was apparently not enough to mollify the hard-edged reporters on the scene who persisted with the hard line of inquiry. Osteen finally responded, "I don’t feel like that’s my thrust . . . you know, some of the issues that divide us, and I’m here to let people know that God is for them and he’s on their side."

God is on whose side exactly? The Old Testament condemns homosexuality in no uncertain terms. Buggery is termed an "abomination," and Leviticus 20:13 established the death penalty for homosexual acts.

In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul provides a revealing description of homosexuality: "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (Rom. 1:27).

The word "inflamed" here literally means "to burn out." Homosexuality involves the burning out of a man. The structure of the passage in Romans 1 indicates that homosexuality as a practice represents the height of apostasy and hostility toward God.

In a week when a British evangelical was arrested for merely passing out leaflets at a homosexual rally, Osteen's tepidness is really little more than cowardice. "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death" (Rev. 21:8).

Writing about Osteen's comments, Dr. Mohler hits the nail squarely:

Mr. Osteen can be assured that his weak and evasive non-answer to this reporter's question will put him at very little risk for arrest. But then, pandering prophets are rarely at much of a risk from the public anyway.

There was no conviction in his answer; no clear declaration of biblical truth; no Gospel, no judgment, and no promise. Just a non-answer with a smile. Pathetic . . . simply pathetic.

Pastor John Returns

Our pastor, John Piper, has returned from his five-month sabbatical. And it seems he was quite busy:

I was able to finish writing the main body of two books. One is called What Jesus Demands from the World, which will be published by Crossway Books in late September (Lord willing). It is a 365-page book on the commands of Jesus, in an attempt to obey Matthew 28:19, "Teach them to observe everything I commanded you." Not just to know everything, but to observe (obey!) everything. How do you handle the Gospels in such a way that the teaching results in obedience? That was my goal. The other book is a response to N. T. Wright on the doctrine of justification. I have no immediate plan to publish it until I get the feedback from critical readers. My motivation in writing it is that I think his understanding of Paul is wrong and his view of justification is harmful to the church and to the human soul. Few things are more precious than the truth of justification by faith alone because of Christ alone. As a shepherd of a flock of God’s blood-bought church, I feel responsible to lead the sheep to life-giving pastures. That is not what the sheep find in Wright's view of Paul on justification. He is an eloquent and influential writer and is, I believe, misleading many people on the doctrine of justification. I will keep you posted on what becomes of this manuscript.

Definitely something to look forward to. You can read his entire report here.

For more on the doctrine of justification, check out Phil Johnson's excellent series on 2 Corinthians 5:21 over at PyroManiacs.

Worship Service or Pep Rally?

Maybe we've been going about things the wrong way. Maybe what we need isn't more Christ-centered worship or expositional preaching or even sound, biblical doctrine. Maybe what our churches need are more mascots. From the satirical LarkNews.com:

MONTEREY, Calif. — First Nazarene Church used to start Sunday services with announcements and a generic welcome from the associate pastor. Now service starts with whirling spotlights, stadium music and a cougar mascot bounding down the center aisle slapping high fives and making "raise the roof" gestures.

"Adding Christian Cougar was a great move for us," says the pastor. "No one calls our church boring anymore."

Churches across the country are adopting mascots to pump up Sunday mornings and rally people in worship.

"Our new mascot energizes things," says pastor Del Richards of Valley Baptist Church in Little Rock, Ark., which just introduced Lift-Him-Up Lion.

On Sunday morning during worship time, the Lion rushes on stage and does the running man dance to "Blessed Be Your Name." He then makes "I can't hear you" motions and broad clapping gestures, then kneels with his hands raised when the songs turn slower. Worship team members play along with his antics. During the offertory he pulls out an oversized wallet and dumps wads of fake cash into the offering plate. During the sermon he stands to the side and makes rah-rah gestures and encourages people to applaud.

"I tell him to go with the Spirit and raise some heaven," says the pastor. "By the time I get in the pulpit, the people are so amped up they can hardly contain themselves." ...

... Mascots are also an affordable option compared to larger projects.

"We couldn't afford a new youth center, but we can afford a wolverine costume," says a Michigan pastor whose attendance has risen considerably since they added Worship Wolverine, who does trampoline flips, handstands and runs across the platform with a banner that says, "Praise!" ...

... Some churches experimented with live characters like Samson or the Apostle Paul, but people "thought they were weirdos or homeless people." Most stick with animals. (Full story)

Now, if people dressed up as animals can be used to get the congregation fired up for the Lord, just think of how much more excited people would be about going to church if we added cheerleaders!

Oh, that would be too much? I suppose. After all, we wouldn't want anything to take our focus off of Christ, now, would we? Unfortunately, looking at everything churches do to get people through the doors, we can't be too far away.

Should Christians Be Optimistic, Part III

I’m finally returning to the question of how Christians should view history, particularly the future.

I want to turn very briefly to the humiliation and sacrifice of our Lord and ponder just how it should change or shape our outlook of the future. Jesus suffered greatly, both as man and God, for the sins of His people.

First, he laid down His divine prerogatives to take the form of a humble servant. Paul writes that Jesus "made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Phil. 2:7-8)

Second, not only did Jesus die for us, He lived a perfect life for us, too, in the face of great temptation. As the Second Adam, Jesus had to face and overcome the temptations and machinations of Satan (Matt. 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13). The author of Hebrews says that, "we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15). Jesus had to face and conquer temptation on behalf of His people as a man, to win victory where Adam had fallen.

Third, in His physical being, Jesus had real, human, physical limitations. He hungered (Matt. 4:2), thirsted (John 19:28), and became physically tired (Mark 4:38). Additionally, Jesus had real human emotions. At various points, Jesus is described as troubled (John 12:27), sorrowful (Matt. 26:38), and compassionate (Mark 1:41).

Fourth, before going to the Cross, Jesus suffered slapping and scourging by His Roman tormentors and was mocked and cursed by His own kinsmen of the flesh. He endured harsh physical and emotional pain on our behalf.

Fifth, on the Cross, He became Sin for us. The Bible says that he became "a curse." "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.'" As God, Jesus was without sin, and yet He willingly became sin to save His people from the coming wrath and judgment of God. "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (II Cor. 5:21).

Finally, Scripture says that the only begotten Son of God, who shared perfect fellowship as the second member of the Godhead, was forsaken by the Father. “And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34).

Christ's suffering begs the question, was it all in vain? Did Jesus do all of this so that only a small percentage of men would be saved? Did he suffer so that the world would fall increasingly under the reign of Satan? Moreover, is Jesus’ victory at the cross and His ultimate exaltation primarily, if not exclusively in the spiritual realm?

It seems reasonable to assume that because His suffering, humiliation, death, burial, and ultimate triumph occur in rather than outside histor--and as a real, physical man--that His ultimate victory likewise will be visible and on earth, in history, not as the result of a post-historical discontinuity.

W. G. T. Shedd puts it this way:

It is utterly improbable that such a stupendous miracle as the incarnation, humiliation, passion, and crucifixion of one of the Person of the Godhead, should yield a small and insignificant result. On a priori grounds, therefore, we have reason to conclude that the Gospel of the Cross will be successful, and the Christian religion a triumph on the earth and among the race of creatures for whom it was intended. But this can hardly be the case, if only a small fraction of the human family are saved. The presumption, consequently, is that the great majority of mankind not the small minority of it, will be the subjects of redeeming grace.

What Is Most Damaging to the Body of Christ?

Marc Heinrich poses an interesting question on his site, Purgatorio: Which of the following is most damaging to the Body of Christ?:

1. The Anglican's naming a woman Presiding Bishop who supports ordination of practicing gay clergy:


Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori became the first woman elected to lead a church in the global Anglican Communion when she was picked Sunday to be the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church. ... In 2003, the Americans shocked the Anglican world by electing the first openly gay bishop—V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. Placing a female bishop at the head of the denomination may further anger conservatives overseas and within the U.S. church. And Jefferts Schori voted to confirm Robinson.

2. The PCUSA's allowing the renaming of the Trinity to "compassionate mother, beloved child, and life-giving womb" instead of "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit":


At the recent 217th General Assembly meeting, PC(USA) commissioners voted to allow the denomination's churches to use the phrase "compassionate mother, beloved child, and life-giving womb" instead of "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" when referring to the Trinity. This was just one of the 12 phrases approved by the Assembly as permissible substitutions for the traditional names of the Godhead, another being "rock, cornerstone, and temple."

3. The SBC's resolution on alcohol:


RESOLVED, That we urge that no one be elected to serve as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention that is a user of alcoholic beverages.

RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to take an active role in supporting legislation that is intended to curb alcohol use in our communities and nation ...

While I believe all three positions are unbiblical, it is my contention that #3 (i.e., the issue of liberty vs. legalism) is the most damaging to the Body of Christ. Why do I say that? Because those churches who agree with #1 or #2 have already demonstrated that they are not part of the Body of Christ.

Is Old Testament Law Applicable Today?

Something that has been on my heart lately is the relevance of Old Testament Law: Does it still apply to us today? I hope to write more on this subject in the near future, but in the meantime, let me share some of my initial thoughts on the subject.

Whevever I hear someone talk about "God's Law"—in particular, calling for "God's Law" to be enforced in civil government—I find myself a bit confused. What exactly does that entail? What do they mean by "God's Law"? My concern is that what they are really pushing is an American theocracy.

Recently, I read an article that called for the state-sanctioned killing of homosexuals. "The word of God commands that sodomites are to be executed," the author writes, "and God gives our civil officials the sword to do the job. Until our civil officials turn from their wicked way by administering Justice, we can only be judged with the most depraved pagan nations in history." Welcome to life under theocratic rule.

One of the things that jumps out at me whenever I see a plea for a return to "God's Law" is the lack of clarification in defining the law. If honoring the law means adherence to the Old Testament, then what other laws should we enforce? Should a man who lies with a woman during her menstrual cycle be banished (Lev. 20:18)? Should women who aren't virgins be stoned to death (Deut. 22:20-21)? Should all adulterers be executed (Deut. 22:22)? Should we stone rebellious children (Deut. 21:20-21)? What's to be done with those who mar the edges of their beards (Lev. 19:27)? Should women who have just given birth be kept from attending church services for 33 days—66 if they give birth to a girl (Lev. 12:4-5)? And how should we lawfully and biblically deal with those who have bodily discharge (Lev. 15)?

How are we to determine which laws are to be enforced? Didn't James say that if we fail to keep the law in one point, we are guilty of breaking all of it (James 2:10)? I'm not saying that the Old Testament is irrelavant, but we must look at it in light of the New Testament.

For example, in the New Testament we learn that Christ, through his life, death, and resurrection, fulfilled the law (Matt. 5:17, Luke 24:44, John 15:25). We as Christians fulfill the law through love (Rom. 13:10). And Paul reminds us that "the whole law is fulfilled in one word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'" (Gal. 5:14).

That, of course, isn't to say that we should be silent when it comes to the law. As we take Christ to the world, we preach the law so that people are convicted of their sin. But we also reach out to the lost in love by preaching the gospel. That's how individual lives, families, communities, nations, and the world are changed. No amount of legislating will do that.

A New Law
- from Mockingbird by Derek Webb



Don't teach me about politics and government
Just tell me who to vote for

Don't teach me about truth and beauty
Just label my music

Don't teach me how to live like a free man
Just give me a new law

I don't wanna know if the answers aren't easy
So just bring it down from the mountain to me

I want a new law
I want a new law
Gimme that new law

Don't teach me about moderation and liberty
I prefer a shot of grape juice

Don't teach me about loving my enemies

Don't teach me how to listen to the Spirit
Just give me a new law

I don't wanna know if the answers aren't easy
So just bring it down from the mountain to me

I want a new law
I want a new law
Gimme that new law

What's the use in trading a law you can never keep
for one you can that cannot get you anything
Do not be afraid
Do not be afraid
Do not be afraid