Atheists Know More About Religion? Not Surprising

In a new survey it has shown that Atheists and Agnostics know more about religion than the average Protestant. If you want to read a short story on this, check out this news story here. But, if you think about it, they probably should. The reason I say this is that those who have a deep knowledge of religion and see its affects, no doubt will they become unbelievers of religion itself. This isn't surprising, nor is it troubling. When one looks at religion, specifically Christianity as a whole (putting both Catholicism and Protestantism in the same breath), it is pretty grotesque to look at and see any resemblance of Jesus. Why wouldn't those who have done a ton of study on religion become unbelievers? I honestly don't believe that many who call themselves atheists or agnostics have heard the true story of Jesus or those who actually follow him. What they have received is a look at what religion does to a people, instead of seeing those who are actually transformed by the good news of Jesus. One could call me an atheist to this kind of religion as well.

In the movie, The Book of Eli (a movie about a post apocalyptic world), one of the villains desperately wants a copy of the Bible because he desires to control the minds of others. He said, "it's happened once, it can happen again." What we see is that it has nothing to do with the Bible that causes people to sin and reign over people, but the person who uses it for their own gain. It's like a knife. It can either be used for open heart surgery to save a life, or used by a murderer to kill someone. The knife isn't the problem, the person is.

The main character in The Book of Eli, played by Denzel Washington, states this (talking about the Bible):

In all these years I've been carrying it and reading it every day, I got so caught up in keeping it safe that I forgot to live by what I learned from it.

If you have seen this movie, you will notice this is a very profound and timely quote.

When one then reads that atheists know more facts about the Bible than a lot of Protestants, many pastors will use this as sermon material to challenge their people. But, is this the point of the good news? Are we supposed to know facts about the Bible, or are we to be living examples of the Bible and point people to Jesus? The survey shows that some Protestants didn't know basic things like who Martin Luther was, or about what transubstantiation is truly about. Although these things might add to someone's faith, is this the most important things about our faith? Not at all. Our faith in Jesus shouldn't be about merely knowing facts about Jesus (which is important), or facts about the Bible (which is important), but our faith should be in the understanding that no matter how smart or how dumb we are, we are all in the same position of wrath because of our sin. We are in need of a Saviour. We are in need of Jesus.

I would rather see us, who believe in Jesus, show who the real Jesus is by loving our neighbors, by loving, praying for and blessing our enemies, instead of going to war with them. I would rather someone say to me, "your the dumbest person I have ever met, but one thing I know, you are a lot like Jesus." This isn't to show that I am some great person, but that I merely serve the greatest person to ever live, die and live again...the God/Man...Jesus.

This is exactly what the people said of some of the disciples in the days after Jesus ascended to heaven:

When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus
Acts 4:15

Maybe instead of trying to be the smartest guys in the room, we should desire to merely serve the smartest guys in the room. Maybe instead of trying to do good on a test about facts about Jesus, we could show people up close who Jesus is and what he is about. Maybe instead of being a functional atheist, living like there is no god, we could live like we actually believe what was written to us by our God.

Maybe.

“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
John 13:34-35

Read More......

Will America Fall Like Rome?

I have been reading Schaeffer's "How Should We Then Live?" and he comes to the point towards the end of the book of the problem with modern modern man...which is another way to say before his time, postmodern man. He is showing the rise of this man throughout the history of cultures around the world. As he does this, he comes to the point of where he saw the United States in the mid 1970's, which is when the book was written. The sad thing, is that this country looks a lot like Rome when it fell. Here is where Schaeffer is making his point from:

Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1788) said that the following five attributes marked Rome at its end:

1. A mounting love of show and luxury (that is, affluence)

2. A widening gap between the very rich and the very poor (this could be countries in the family of nations as well as in a single nation)

3. An obsession with sex

4. Freakishness in the arts, masquerading as originality and enthusiasms pretending to be creativity (I put some pictures that I took from the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art so you could see up close the absurdity)

5. An increased desire to live off the state

This was Schaeffer quoting Gibbon back in the 70's. How far we have come in a mere 30 years to show that Schaeffer was noticing something even then what was coming. I just wonder how close we are to calling ourselves Romerica. (click read more to look at SFMOMA Pictures.

Read More......

History of Religion in 90 Seconds

I first saw this over at Justin Taylor's blog a while back...wanted to share it again...pretty cool illustration.

Read More......

Book Review: For Us and Our Salvation

Stephen J. Nichols hit a homerun in this book. As the title suggests Dr. Nichols' goal is to establish what the early church thought of the deity of Christ. He lays this out by going through a quick examination of who the "players" are, what and who they were fighting, and then laying out their arguments.

After this, he lets the men speak for themselves with their own writings. I really enjoyed this format. You get some explanation and then you get to read for yourself. Most books will either focus on just the explanation and yet others just lay out the entirety of a writing. This book is a great medium. Although it is short, it gets to the point and shows that the Council of Nicaea was definitely not the first time that Jesus' deity was brought forth in the church, but was an orthodoxy handed down from the Apostles to those in the early church.

The book is broken down in chapters and includes many men and their beliefs. From the early centuries all the way to the fifth century. You read from men like Ignatius, Irenaeus, Turtullian, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Leo the Great, and more. You also encounter some of the heretical writings so that you see what these men were fighting against.

All and all, I would use this book as a resource for any that doubt the doctrine of Christ's divinity in relation to the early church. No doubt the Bible speaks of the divinity of Christ, but now we are getting attacked that it was a foreign concept to the church fathers. This book puts that to rest in a quick and easy read on the subject that Jesus Christ was no doubt God, and was For Us and Our Salvation. Highly Recommended

Link to Buy

Read More......

Hurricane Katrina and the liberal media

We will bookend the week with another article from John Piper. I was greatly encouraged by this bold statement that was published shortly after Katrina. It not only calls to account the blasphemous accusations of man against God, but also provides us with a biblical response to such tragedies.

God is supreme. God is sovereign. May we all learn the cover our mouths, but do so quicker than Job did (40:4).

Click here to read the article. It is imbedded in a .PDF, so I apologize in advance for the awkward format. But the content is too good to pass up.

Read More......

Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities

I didn't know what to expect when I picked up this book. I actually tried to stay away from reading any reviews beforehand so that I could give it a good, honest, unbiased opinion as I read through it. I will tell you this, I think Roger Olson is very fair and very honest about the Arminian theological system. I was expecting to get attacked as a Calvinist, but I truly found just the opposite. I have seen reviews since I started the book that call out Dr. Olson as being angry and hateful, but I found just the opposite. I expected to be "railed against" but really just found an honest dissertation of some of the myths of the Arminian theology.

What I did find was that the crux of the difference between the two theologies really lies in the manner in which God chooses men to be saved. The Calvinist states that we as dirty, sinful, godless humans should be grateful to see that God is gracious to choose any to go to heaven, instead of allowing us all to go to hell. Arminians, on the other hand, believe that God is so loving that He would choose everyone to heaven if He could, but He leaves the choice in salvation to the libertarian free will of man through prevenient grace.

The Calvinist cannot see God ever giving up any of His sovereignty, even in the choice of who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. The Arminian cannot see God, being loving, to ever control humans in their choices, or this results in God being the author and creator of sin and the human not having true love for the Creator. This chasm, as Dr. Olson plainly states, will never be brought together between the two sides. Which I completely agree.

The one place that I saw Dr. Olson arguing for over and over in the book is that Arminianism is not Semi-Pelagian because it is not that good was left in man after the fall, but that God, in His grace gave all men prevenient grace. Here is my issue with this argument. Did not God allow the good to be humans before the fall? So, whether you believe that a little good was left over (Semi-Pelagian) or that God, after the fall, gave all men prevenient grace (Arminianism), which is also good, how is this different? It's just a matter of timing, in my opinion. Dr. Olson also goes into a little dissertation on Open Theism where he does not really try and disprove, but says simply that some Arminians are going "that way" and some are undecided. This is where Arminianism gets real dangerous, in my opinion.

I did enjoy the book and Dr. Olson's thoroughness in it. Do not expect the book to be one that tries to "convince" you of the Arminian position, for this was not the intent (this is also the reason why there was very little biblical references). The intent was to clear up some misconceptions of Arminian theology. Which for me, it did the job that Dr. Olson was trying to do, but that does not mean that I agree with him. I would recommend this book to anyone and everyone looking for an honest assessment of Arminianism.

I also appreciate Dr. Olson's heart in wanting the two sides to be able to serve with one another and to proclaim the gospel together. I found this a place where a lot of my Calvinist friends could learn from. Link to Buy

Read More......

Luther's 97 Theses: Disputation Against Scholastic Theology

I have taken this from the book: Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings edited by Timothy F. Lull


In this crucial document from the early fall of 1517, Luther offers a number of theses for debate that are sharply critical of the currently reigning method of scholastic theology, with its high confidence in human reason and free will. The philosophical dependence of theology on Aristotle, going back two hundred and fifty years to St. Thomas Aquinas, may initially have been a creative and worthwhile experiment. But now as Luther views the scholastic theology of his own time, this approach has blunted the distinctiveness of the gospel.
The reader may well find the thesis-form forbidding and find some of the issues that Luther is addressing difficult to understand. These theses were written for a student to defend in an academic exercise at the University of Wittenberg and therefore were designed only to provide initial clues about these positions. Their very pointed, exaggerated nature is part of the intellectual challenge of the disputation for those who must develop and defend them.
But the reader who perseveres will find in them many of the major themes of Luther’s own theology as they had been emerging in his biblical lectures of the preceding years. One can at least see that Luther already had strong convictions on a number of issues, especially the relations between sin, grace, free will, and good works, even before the debate about indulgences began.
Luther’s language is sharp, but his official posture is still deferential. He concludes the attack on scholastic theology with the claim that we believe we have said nothing that is not in agreement with the Catholic church and the teachers of the church. But within weeks Luther had launched a debate about the selling of indulgences that brought him and his theology to the attention of the highest church authorities.
Translated by Harold J. Grimm

1. To say that Augustine exaggerates in speaking against heretics is to say that Augustine tells lies almost everywhere. This is contrary to common knowledge.
2. This is the same as permitting Pelagians1 and all heretics to triumph, indeed, the same as conceding victory to them.
3. It is the same as making sport of the authority of all doctors of theology.
4. It is therefore true that man, being a bad tree, can only will and do evil [Cf. Matt. 7:17–18].
5. It is false to state that man’s inclination is free to choose between either of two opposites. Indeed, the inclination is not free, but captive. Tiffs is said in opposition to common opinion.

6. It is false to state that the will can by nature conform to correct precept. This is said in opposition to Scotus2 and Gabriel.3
7. As a matter of fact, without the grace of God the will produces an act that is perverse and evil.
8. It does not, however, follow that the will is by nature evil, that is, essentially evil, as the Manichaeans4 maintain.
9. It is nevertheless innately and inevitably evil and corrupt.
10. One must concede that the will is not free to strive toward whatever is declared good. This in opposition to Scotus and Gabriel.
11. Nor is it able to will or not to will whatever is prescribed.
12. Nor does one contradict St. Augustine when one says that nothing is so much in the power of the will as the will itself.
13. It is absurd to conclude that erring man can love the creature above all things, therefore also God. This in opposition to Scotus and Gabriel.
14. Nor is it surprising that the will can conform to erroneous and not to correct precept.
15. Indeed, it is peculiar to it that it can only conform to erroneous and not to correct precept.
16. One ought rather to conclude: since erring man is able to love the creature it is impossible for him to love God.
17. Man is by nature unable to want God to be God. Indeed, he himself wants to be God, and does not want God to be God.
18. To love God above all things by nature is a fictitious term, a chimera, as it were. This is contrary to common teaching.
19. Nor can we apply the reasoning of Scotus concerning the brave citizen who loves his country more than himself.
20. An act of friendship is done, not according to nature, but according to prevenient grace. This in opposition to Gabriel.
21. No act is done according to nature that is not an act of concupiscence against God.
22. Every act of concupiscence against God is evil and a fornication of the spirit.
23. Nor is it true that an act of concupiscence can be set aright by the virtue of hope. This in opposition to Gabriel.
24. For hope is not contrary to charity, which seeks and desires only that which is of God.
25. Hope does not grow out of merits, but out of suffering which destroys merits. This in opposition to the opinion of many.
26. An act of friendship is not the most perfect means for accomplishing that which is in one.5 Nor is it the most perfect means for obtaining the grace of God or turning toward and approaching God.
27. But it is an act of conversion already perfected, following grace both in time and by nature.
28. If it is said of the Scripture passages, “Return to me,…and I will return to you” [Zech. 1:3.], “Draw near to God and he will draw near to you” [Jas. 4:8], “Seek and you will find” [Matt. 7:7], “You will seek me and find me” [Jer. 29:13], and the like, that one is by nature, the other by grace, this is no different from asserting what the Pelagians have said.
29. The best and infallible preparation for grace and the sole disposition toward grace is the eternal election and predestination of God.
30. On the part of man, however, nothing precedes grace except indisposition and even rebellion against grace.
31. It is said with the idlest demonstrations that the predestined can be damned individually but not collectively. This in opposition to the scholastics.
32. Moreover, nothing is achieved by the following saying: Predestination is necessary by virtue of the consequence of God’s willing, but not of what actually followed, namely, that God had to elect a certain person.
33. And this is false, that doing all that one is able to do can remove the obstacles to grace. This in opposition to several authorities.
34. In brief, man by nature has neither correct precept nor good will.
35. It is not true that an invincible ignorance excuses one completely (all scholastics notwithstanding);
36. For ignorance of God and oneself and good work is always invincible to nature.
37. Nature, moreover, inwardly and necessarily glories and takes pride in every work which is apparently and outwardly good.
38. There is no moral virtue without either pride or sorrow, that is, without sin.
39. We are not masters of our actions, from beginning to end, but servants. This in opposition to the philosophers.
40. We do not become righteous by doing righteous deeds but, having been made righteous, we do righteous deeds. This in opposition to the philosophers.
41. Virtually the entire Ethics of Aristotle is the worst enemy of grace. This in opposition to the scholastics.
42. It is an error to maintain that Aristotle’s statement concerning happiness does not contradict Catholic doctrine. This in opposition to the doctrine on morals.
43. It is an error to say that no man can become a theologian without Aristotle. This in opposition to common opinion.
44. Indeed, no one can become a theologian unless he becomes one without Aristotle.
45. To state that a theologian who is not a logician is a monstrous heretic—this is a monstrous and heretical statement. This in opposition to common opinion.
46. In vain does one fashion a logic of faith, a substitution brought about without regard for limit and measure. This in opposition to the new dialecticians.
47. No syllogistic form is valid when applied to divine terms. This in opposition to the Cardinal.6
48. Nevertheless it does not for that reason follow that the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity contradicts syllogistic forms. This in opposition to the same new dialecticians and to the Cardinal.
49. If a syllogistic form of reasoning holds in divine matters, then the doctrine of the Trinity is demonstrable and not the object of faith.
50. Briefly, the whole Aristotle7 is to theology as darkness is to light. This in opposition to the scholastics.
51. It is very doubtful whether the Latins comprehended the correct meaning of Aristotle.
52. It would have been better for the church if Porphyry8 with his universals had not been born for the use of theologians.
53. Even the more useful definitions of Aristotle seem to beg the question.
54. For an act to be meritorious, either the presence of grace is sufficient, or its presence means nothing. This in opposition to Gabriel.
55. The grace of God is never present in such a way that it is inactive, but it is a living, active, and operative spirit; nor can it happen that through the absolute power of God an act of friendship may be present without the presence of the grace of God. This in opposition to Gabriel.
56. It is not true that God can accept man without his justifying grace. This in opposition to Ockham.9
57. It is dangerous to say that the law commands that an act of obeying the commandment be done in the grace of God. This in opposition to the Cardinal and Gabriel.
58. From this it would follow that “to have the grace of God” is actually a new demand going beyond the law.
59. It would also follow that fulfilling the law can take place without the grace of God.
60. Likewise it follows that the grace of God would be more hateful than the law itself.
61. It does not follow that the law should be complied with and fulfilled in the grace of God. This in opposition to Gabriel.
62. And that therefore he who is outside the grace of God sins incessantly, even when he does not kill, commit adultery, or become angry.
63. But it follows that he sins because he does not spiritually fulfill the law.
64. Spiritually that person does not kill, does not do evil, does not become enraged when he neither becomes angry nor lusts.
65. Outside the grace of God it is indeed impossible not to become angry or lust, so that not even in grace is it possible to fulfill the law perfectly.
66. It is the righteousness of the hypocrite actually and outwardly not to kill, do evil, etc.
67. It is by the grace of God that one does not lust or become enraged.
68. Therefore it is impossible to fulfill the law in any way without the grace of God.
69. As a matter of fact, it is more accurate to say that the law is destroyed by nature without the grace of God.
70. A good law will of necessity be bad for the natural will.
71. Law and will are two implacable foes without the grace of God.
72. What the law wants, the will never wants, unless it pretends to want it out of fear or love.
73. The law, as taskmaster of the will, will not be overcome except by the “child, who has been born to us” [Isa. 9:6].
74. The law makes sin abound because it irritates and repels the will [Rom. 7:13].
75. The grace of God, however, makes justice abound through Jesus Christ because it causes one to be pleased with the law.
76. Every deed of the law without the grace of God appears good outwardly, but inwardly it is sin. This in opposition to the scholastics.
77. The will is always averse to, and the hands inclined toward, the law of the Lord without the grace of God.
78. The will which is inclined toward the law without the grace of God is so inclined by reason of its own advantage.
79. Condemned are all those who do the works of the law.
80. Blessed are all those who do the works of the grace of God.
81. Chapter Falsas concerning penance, dist. 5, 10 confirms the fact that works outside the realm of grace are not good, if this is not understood falsely.
82. Not only are the religious ceremonials not the good law and the precepts in which one does not live (in opposition to many teachers);
83. But even the Decalogue itself and all that can be taught and prescribed inwardly and outwardly is not good law either.
84. The good law and that in which one lives is the love of God, spread abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.
85. Anyone’s will would prefer, if it were possible, that there would be no law and to be entirely free.
86. Anyone’s will hates it that the law should be imposed upon it; if, however, the will desires imposition of the law it does so out of love of self.
87. Since the law is good, the will, which is hostile to it, cannot be good.
88. And from this it is clear that everyone’s natural will is iniquitous and bad.
89. Grace as a mediator is necessary to reconcile the law with the will.
90. The grace of God is given for the purpose of directing the will, lest it err even in loving God. In opposition to Gabriel.
91. It is not given so that good deeds might be induced more frequently and readily, but because without it no act of love is performed. In opposition to Gabriel.
92. It cannot be denied that love is superfluous if man is by nature able to do an act of friendship. In opposition to Gabriel.
93. There is a kind of subtle evil in the argument that an act is at the same time the fruit and the use of the fruit. In opposition to Ockham, the Cardinal, Gabriel.
94. This holds true also of the saying that the love of God may continue alongside an intense love of the creature.
95. To love God is at the same time to hate oneself and to know nothing but God.
96. We must make our will conform in every respect to the will of God (in opposition to the Cardinal);
97. So that we not only will what God wills, but also ought to will whatever God wills.
In these statements we wanted to say and believe we have said nothing that is not in agreement with the Catholic church and the teachers of the church.
1517

Editor, T. F. L., & Second Edition Editor, W. R. R. (2005; 2005). Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings. Fortress Press.

Read More......

Calvin vs Servetus

Thought this was a good small article on the execution of a heretic named Servetus, which has caused many to hate Calvin and to believe him to also be at fault as an heretic.

by J. Steven Wilkins

In the year 1553 an event occurred which would forever blacken the reputation of Calvin in the eyes of an ungodly world. In that year a heretic named Michael Servetus entered Geneva after fleeing from France after being condemned for his heresy there and escaping from prison in Vienna. He was seen in the streets of Geneva and arrested on August 13. This trouble he had brought upon himself by his book which denied the existence of the Trinity as well as the practice of infant baptism. Though the former is clearly a more serious error than the latter, the latter position identified Servetus with the hated Anabaptists who had spread the revolutionary ideas of socialism and communism. Why Servetus came to Geneva is not clear though the Reformer Wolfgang Musculus wrote that he apparently thought that Geneva might be favorable to him since there was so much opposition to Calvin.


On August 21, the authorities in Geneva wrote to Vienna asking further information on Servetus. The authorities in Vienna immediately demanded his extradition to face charges there. At this the Genevan city council offered Servetus a choice: he could either be returned to Vienna or stay in Geneva and face the charges against him. Servetus, significantly, chose to remain in Geneva.

The trial began and as it progressed, it became evident that the authorities had two choices: banish Servetus or execute him. They sent to their sister cities Berne, Zurich, Schaffhausen and Basle for their counsel. The counsel from each city was the same: execute the heretic. The method of burning alive was chosen. Calvin intervened to appeal for the more quick and merciful beheading as the method of execution but the council refused and on October 26, 1553, Michael Servetus was executed.

It is strange that this incident should bring such odium upon Calvin and another example of the hatred of orthodox Christianity that it has. The facts are that mass executions were carried out in other places throughout this time. After the Peasants' War in Germany, after the siege of Munster, during the ruthless period of Roman Catholic dominance in Elizabethan England. Even as late as 1612 the authorities in England burned two men who held views like those of Servetus at the behest of the bishops of London and Lichfield. Thirty-nine people were burned at the stake for heresy between May of 1547 and March of 1550. The 16th century was not a time of great tolerance of heresy in any place in Europe.

If one contends that Calvin was in error in agreeing with the execution of heretics then why is there not equal indignation against all the other leaders who supported and carried out and supported these measures elsewhere. None less than the honored Thomas Aquinas explicitly supported the burning of heretics saying, "If the heretic still remains pertinacious the church, despairing of his conversion, provides for the salvation of others by separating him from the church by the sentence of excommunication and then leaves him to the secular judge to be exterminated from the world by death." (Summa Theologiae, IIaIIae q. 11 a. 3)

Furthermore, Servetus was the only individual put to death for heresy in Geneva during Calvin's lifetime. Strange indignation it is that men focus upon this one and virtually ignore the hundreds executed in other parts of the world.

Further still, it must be remembered that Calvin's role in this entire matter was only that of expert witness at the trial. The idea that Calvin was "the dictator of Geneva" is utterly unfounded in fact. Calvin was never allowed to become a citizen of Geneva. He was technically among the habitants — resident legal aliens who had no right to vote, no right to carry weapons, and no right to hold public office. A habitant might be a pastor or teacher if there was no Genevan citizen who was qualified for the position. This is why Calvin was allowed to be pastor of the church there. But he was always denied access to the decision-making machinery.

The only place where Calvin could have exerted significant influence was in the Consistory. But the Consistory was completely bypassed in this entire matter by the council apparently in an effort to demonstrate that they were far more concerned for holiness and purity than Calvin (and some of the people) had thought. They sought thus to shut Calvin out of this matter as much as possible.

Why then all the outrage at Calvin? Simply because of who he was and what he taught. The world can live with Romanism and Arminianism, it cannot abide the truth of the Reformed faith. For this reason Calvin and Calvinism have been the enemies of the world and will be till the world ends.



Copyright 1998, J. Steven Wilkins

Read More......

Lutherans and Luther

I am currently reading "Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings" and I came across a quote that I want to share. I will tell you first of all, that I do believe, for the most part, that the widespread Lutheran church has departed grossly from the teachings of Luther. But, I also know that I am no historian of Luther or the Lutheran church, so feel free to correct me. I come across the quote below and wonder how those in the Lutheran church would respond. I will also tell you that I am a Calvinist but would never say that I am a follower of Calvin, nor would I respect a church that called themselves, "First Church of Calvin" or something of that same title. I only use the term Calvinist to show my convictions in soteriology. Maybe that is the same response that I would get from a Lutheran following this quote, but it would seem that they would follow more closely Luther's convictions on Scripture than they currently do.

So here is the quote and wouldn't mind a discussion on "Should Lutherans be calling themselves Lutherans, and/or should we ever name a church after a man?"

A Sincere Admonition by Martin Luther to All Christians to Guard Against Insurrection and Rebellion (1522)

After the Diet of Worms, Luther went into hiding at the Wartburg Castle. While there, he received reports of increasing popular unrest, precipitated by attempts to reform church and society by violent means. In December 1521, Luther wrote this document, urging restraint in the institution of reform measures. In the context of his arguments for his followers to move slowly, surely, and without violence, he included these oft-quoted words.

…In the first place, I ask that men make no reference to my name; let them call themselves Christians, not Lutherans. What is Luther? After all, the teaching is not mine [John 7:16]. Neither was I crucified for anyone [I Cor. 1:13]. St. Paul, in I Corinthians 3, would not allow the Christians to call themselves Pauline or Petrine, but Christian. How then should I—poor stinking maggot-fodder15 that I am—come to have men call the children of Christ by my wretched name? Not so, my dear friends; let us abolish all party names and call ourselves Christians, after him whose teaching we hold. I neither am nor want to be anyone’s master. I hold, together with the universal church, the one universal teaching of Christ, who is our only master [Matt. 23:8].

Read More......

Thanksgiving

The Pilgrims and America's First Thanksgiving

The Pilgrims, who celebrated the first thanksgiving in America, were fleeing religious prosecution in their native England. In 1609 a group of Pilgrims left England for the religious freedom in Holland where they lived and prospered. After a few years their children were speaking Dutch and had become attached to the dutch way of life. This worried the Pilgrims. They considered the Dutch frivolous and their ideas a threat to their children's education and morality.

So they decided to leave Holland and travel to the New World. Their trip was financed by a group of English investors, the Merchant Adventurers. It was agreed that the Pilgrims would be given passage and supplies in exchange for their working for their backers for 7 years.

On Sept. 6, 1620 the Pilgrims set sail for the New World on a ship called the Mayflower. They sailed from Plymouth, England and aboard were 44 Pilgrims, who called themselves the "Saints", and 66 others, whom the Pilgrims called the "Strangers."

The long trip was cold and damp and took 65 days. Since there was the danger of fire on the wooden ship, the food had to be eaten cold. Many passengers became sick and one person died by the time land was sighted on November 10th.

The long trip led to many disagreements between the "Saints" and the "Strangers". After land was sighted a meeting was held and an agreement was worked out, called the Mayflower Compact, which guaranteed equality and unified the two groups. They joined together and named themselves the "Pilgrims."

Although they had first sighted land off Cape Cod they did not settle until they arrived at Plymouth, which had been named by Captain John Smith in 1614. It was there that the Pilgrims decide to settle. Plymouth offered an excellent harbor. A large brook offered a resource for fish. The Pilgrims biggest concern was attack by the local Native American Indians. But the Patuxets were a peaceful group and did not prove to be a threat.

The first winter was devastating to the Pilgrims. The cold, snow and sleet was exceptionally heavy, interfering with the workers as they tried to construct their settlement. March brought warmer weather and the health of the Pilgrims improved, but many had died during the long winter. Of the 110 Pilgrims and crew who left England, less that 50 survived the first winter.

On March 16, 1621 , what was to become an important event took place, an Indian brave walked into the Plymouth settlement. The Pilgrims were frightened until the Indian called out "Welcome" (in English!).

His name was Samoset and he was an Abnaki Indian. He had learned English from the captains of fishing boats that had sailed off the coast. After staying the night Samoset left the next day. He soon returned with another Indian named Squanto who spoke better English than Samoset. Squanto told the Pilgrims of his voyages across the ocean and his visits to England and Spain. It was in England where he had learned English.

Squanto's importance to the Pilgrims was enormous and it can be said that they would not have survived without his help. It was Squanto who taught the Pilgrims how to tap the maple trees for sap. He taught them which plants were poisonous and which had medicinal powers. He taught them how to plant the Indian corn by heaping the earth into low mounds with several seeds and fish in each mound. The decaying fish fertilized the corn. He also taught them to plant other crops with the corn.

The harvest in October was very successful and the Pilgrims found themselves with enough food to put away for the winter. There was corn, fruits and vegetables, fish to be packed in salt, and meat to be cured over smoky fires.

The Pilgrims had much to celebrate, they had built homes in the wilderness, they had raised enough crops to keep them alive during the long coming winter, they were at peace with their Indian neighbors. They had beaten the odds and it was time to celebrate.
The Pilgrim Governor William Bradford proclaimed a day of thanksgiving to be shared by all the colonists and the neighboring Native Americans. They invited Squanto and the other Indians to join them in their celebration. Their chief, Massasoit, and 90 braves came to the celebration which lasted for 3 days. They played games, ran races, marched and played drums. The Indians demonstrated their skills with the bow and arrow and the Pilgrims demonstrated their musket skills. Exactly when the festival took place is uncertain, but it is believed the celebration took place in mid-October.
The following year the Pilgrims harvest was not as bountiful, as they were still unused to growing the corn. During the year they had also shared their stored food with newcomers and the Pilgrims ran short of food.

The 3rd year brought a spring and summer that was hot and dry with the crops dying in the fields. Governor Bradford ordered a day of fasting and prayer, and it was soon thereafter that the rain came. To celebrate - November 29th of that year was proclaimed a day of thanksgiving. This date is believed to be the real true beginning of the present day Thanksgiving Day.

The custom of an annually celebrated thanksgiving, held after the harvest, continued through the years. During the American Revolution (late 1770's) a day of national thanksgiving was suggested by the Continental Congress.

In 1817 New York State had adopted Thanksgiving Day as an annual custom. By the middle of the 19th century many other states also celebrated a Thanksgiving Day. In 1863 President Abraham Lincoln appointed a national day of thanksgiving. Since then each president has issued a Thanksgiving Day proclamation, usually designating the fourth Thursday of each November as the holiday.

Read More......

God's Foreknowledge

Some, if not most, think that the argument on God’s foreknowledge and election started with James Arminius and John Calvin at the time of the reformation. Yet, it actually started way back between Augustine and Pelagius at the conclusion of the apostolic era of Christianity. This post is not to get into all the “he said, she said” or to exegete tons of passages, but I want to try and find out the meaning of what “foreknew, forknowledge or foreordain” means in the Bible. God’s election and/or foreknowledge is not the debate for these are biblical terms that are used many times over in the Bible, but the debate is what did God foreknow and why did he elect. Look at these passages that mention “foreknew, foreknowledge and foreordain:”

For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained (to be) conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren: and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Romans 8:29,30


Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will;

Eph 1:4-5,11


Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know; him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay:

Acts 2:22-23

Now the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations. Then said I, Ah, Lord Jehovah! behold, I know not how to speak; for I am a child. But Jehovah said unto me, Say not, I am a child; for to whomsoever I shall send thee thou shalt go, and whatsoever I shall command thee thou shalt speak. Be not afraid because of them; for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith Jehovah. Then Jehovah put forth his hand, and touched my mouth; and Jehovah said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth: see, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.

Jer 1:4-10


You get the point and there are many other times where election and the “fore” words are used. Some believe, as James Arminius taught, that God seeing through the “portals of time” saw who would respond to Him and those are His elect and that is what it means to “foreknow;” He foreknew the person’s ACTION of belief. (By the way, both Pelagianism and Arminianism were both declared heresy by the early and reformed church leaders. You can read the whole history of the two by clicking here)

For one, this is never mentioned in Scripture. Does God know man’s action before we actually do them, of course we see that with David in Psalm 139. But my point is this, look at Jeremiah and Jesus. Did God elect Jeremiah to be a prophet because God knew Jeremiah would speak out against the great apostasy in Israel or did God choose Jeremiah to be a prophet first, to speak out against the people? What about Christ? Did God, because He saw that this man, Christ, was going to die on a cross, make or elect Him to be the Saviour of the world? No, absolutely not. He chose Christ, His Son to be the Saviour, and the way he foreordained that redemption was by the hanging on the cross. Just as God chose the elect, so that they would believe in His name, not the other way around.

But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep
John 10:26

It does not say you are not my sheep because you do not believe or you are My sheep because you believe. No, it plainly states that you do not because you are not of My sheep, and if you are one of My sheep, if I foreknew you, you would believe.

I hope this small post puts some clarity in the issue of the “fore” words of the Bible. Much more explanation of verb tenses in the original Greek can be sought and taught but even the simple look at Jeremiah and Christ helps us to understand that God foreknew the person and His call and did not base it on their action or response. How humble that should make us to know it was literally nothing in us but everything in Him.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Read More......

What Happened to Winnie The Pooh?

Tony, I logged onto our little corner of the web today, waiting expectantly for an inspired blog about Pooh Bear (I guess conversation and coffee between friends does not mean much any more).

But this truth, the truth of our impact, has been an encouraging and sobering reality that the Lord has taught me over the past year. I love listening to stories of how people in Christy's family were saved. I think of a Great Great Great Grandmother (the exact lineage would need to be clarified) who came to Christ as a teenager under the preaching of a faithful minister. As far as we can tell, that was the first conversion in the Goff family. But now that heritage has spread through 150 or so years of families being saved, missionaries being sent out, other preachers being raised up. Yet, did that preacher have any concept of the incredible impact one sermon of his could make? That was one sermon, from one man, affecting just one family! The Lord is mighty in His purposes. May we labor hard and contend earnestly though we do not always see the fruit (Heb 11).

Read More......