Category: Theology

Categories
Sacraments

Infant Baptism: The Difference between Roman Catholicism and Reformed Theology

What’s the difference between the RC view and the Reformed view of infant baptism?

Peace,

jm

Much in every way! The Roman Catholic view sees baptism first as an act of Grace that occurs “by the working of the works”. That is, the Sacrament itself, infuses Grace and effectively places the child in a state of grace before God. The grace infused, however, is conditional. The grace can be overthrown and killed in the individual by sin.

The Reformed view is that baptism is ministerial. That is, the minister announces what God has promised in His Word concerning the Covenant inclusion of children and it initiates the child into the covenant community. While the sign and seal of Baptism are not separate from what they signify (real union with Christ) they are not identical. That is to say that we do not believe that the minister is actually conferring union with Christ on the child by the “working of the works” but is announcing the promise of God. That promise is that what Baptism signifies (union with Christ) is promised to the child when he places trust in the Gospel. It is the same thing for an adult in fact. As surely as you see the water signifiying the washing of the filth of the flesh, so are your sins washed away if you believe in the Gospel. It is a visible sign and seal of God’s promise to us that we can look to when the enemy is so oft telling us we are not worthy of such Grace.

In RC baptism, you get in by the Church’s ability to infuse God’s saving grace and you stay in by cooperating with that grace lest you kill it and your “grace meter” goes to a point where justifying grace is killed.

In Reformed baptism, the minister declares the promise of God and seals God’s promises to the recipient. Grace, through faith, saves from beginning to end.

I have a problem with the term presumptive regeneration because presumption carries a connotation that I do not believe parents should have. When I presume something, it means I can take it for granted and little is expected on my part. I know that’s a semantic issue but words have consequences. I also don’t like the idea of presuming regeneration simply because I don’t know the hidden counsel of God. I look at it this way: my chilren are Christians and I treat them like that. I don’t treat them like they’re tiny pagans in my household with no different status than my pagan neighbors before God. They are holy because they are in my Covenant household. This gracious God says to me: “I’m not just promising to save you but your children as well.” A glorious thing indeed that those most dear to me in this world, beside my wife, are not my spiritual enemies.

I pray with them like little Christians with a seminal faith – faith as small as a mustard seed (thank you Rev. Winzer). I know that God has promised to save them if they call upon His name just as He has promised to save me under the same Covenant promise. I do not question their election any more than I question mine for my business is God’s precepts and not His hidden decree.

And so, contrary to my Roman Catholic upbringing, when my children sin, I do not raise them to worry that they’re in danger of hellfire as they have just killed the infused grace within them and need to have the Church dispense more saving grace in Penance. Rather, I discipline them as one who believes their sin has been punished in Christ. I train them to ask their Heavenly Father for forgiveness that they have offended Him in their sin, and I teach them to thank Christ for the salvation of sins found only in Him for those that believe in Him.

The difference between Roman Catholic Baptism and Reformed Baptism (aka Christian) is the difference between the doctrine of demons and a visible sign and seal of God’s Grace to His elect.

Categories
Sacraments Theology

Responding to a concern that I misrepresented Greg Welty

I have been very busy as of late and was deployed to Korea for an exercise.  While there, a reader who is a friend of Greg Welty had concerns with my post A Critique of Greg Welty's Use of Galations in "From Circumcision to Baptism".  Here is the concern raised:

Greg had said in his paper: 

"What was the heresy of the Judaizers in the book of Galatians?

Fundamentally, their error was to contend that the command to circumcise was essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant and its promises and blessings. Thus, according to them, Gentile converts were required to be circumcised in order to be members of the family of God."

On Greg's view, central to the "promises and blessings" of the Abraham Covenant is *justification itself*. The error of the Judaizers was that you needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. As you rightly observed  "The error was trust in the Law. The error was a reliance upon the Law as a means of Justification." What he says is exactly what Greg believes.

Greg affirms that the Abrahamic Covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace, and is a redemptive covenant. And it's because he holds to classic covenant theology, that I stated things as I did.

His point in the material you cited was *not* to say that the error of the paedobaptist, in his view, was identical to the error of the Judaizer. He explicitly distinguished the two. In the very next paragraph (which you didn't cite), Greg wrote:

"While their error is usually not as serious as that of the Judaizers, the paedobaptist commits a similar error, by contending that the command to apply a covenant sign to one's children is essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant, and its promises and blessings."

The only reason he brought up the Judaizing error is to expose an *analogy* between it and the paedobaptist error. That's all. Also, that analogy bears little argumentative weight in his presentation. It's illustrative at best. My argument that the paedobaptist position is indeed an error is made on other grounds.

So, essentially, you seem to have latched onto an illustration as if it's an argument, but neither I nor Greg is sure you understood his illustration, since you seemed to impute a position to Greg that he does not hold, and that isn't entailed by what he wrote.  You might want to go back and revisit that particular entry.

First, let me state that I am not above reproach.  I carefully read what I wrote and I believe my criticism stands.  I criticized Mr. Welty on his exegesis of Galatians 3 and 4 and I believe that criticism is still valid.  My criticism at this point was not to suggest that it was material to his entire argument but his misappropriation of the "fundamental error" of the Judaizers is indicative of a larger error.

 If Mr. Welty had stated that their fundmental error was a reliance on the Law as a means of Justification then I would have no problem with the statement.  He zeroes in on the actual act of Circumcision, however, and then tries to attribute paedobaptism to a form of the Judaizing heresy, analogy or not.  I never said that Mr. Welty equated paedobaptism with the Judaizing heresy.  That he even put them in the same neighborhood is aggregious enough especially the way in which the analogy is formed.

I also, purposefully, did not deal with the portion where Mr. Welty merely calls the paedobaptist position a "similar error" (I wonder if the anathemas in Gal 1 are "similar").  Why?  Because he gets the Judaizing error wrong.  The Judaizers were not after a mere physical circumcision of the flesh.  To believe otherwise is to mis-read Paul's arguments.  They want the Galatians to take on the requirements of the Law as a means to Justification.  It was not "…the command to circumcise…" that was "…essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant and its promises and blessings…" as Mr. Welty insists.  The Judaizers expected far more than a mere circumcision of the flesh.  Their fundamental error was not even looking to the Abrahamic Covenant as I pointed out and am told that Mr. Welty agrees with.

So I'm left wondering:  If Mr. Welty agrees that it was a belief that Torah keeping=Justification then how does he go from that idea to the idea that the actual physical application of the covenant sign is what Paul has in view as the Judaizers fundamental error?  It's nice to hear from a friend that says that Mr. Welty understands the Judaizing heresy but, in his paper, he errs outright.

 I humbly submit, then, that my original critique be re-read to see that my focus was very specific:  the exegesis of Galatians 3-4 does not permit Mr. Welty to claim that the fundamental error of the Judaizers was that the command to circumcise was essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant.

While I bear no ill will toward either Mr. Welty or the person who asked me to reconsider, I cannot back off of this original critique. 

Categories
Doctrines of Grace

Trials

You will not find one Godly man who came out of an affliction worse than when he went into it. Though for a little while he was shaken, yet, at last, he was better for an affliction. But, a great many Godly men have been worse for their prosperity.

Categories
Doctrines of Grace

Total Depravity

Man is nothing: he hath a free will to go to hell, but none to go to heaven…till God worketh in him to will and to do His good pleasure.

Categories
Doctrines of Grace

The Glory of God

The great end of God’s works, which is so variously expressed in Scripture, is indeed but ONE, and this one end is most properly and comprehensively called, THE GLORY OF GOD.

Categories
Doctrines of Grace

Limited Atonement

Christ did not die for any upon condition, if they do believe; but he died for all God’s elect, that they should believe, and believing have eternal life.

Categories
Doctrines of Grace

Sola Fide Part III: Just Some Reflection and Observation

Seeing as how a portion of my blog title contains the term <em>Reformers</em>, I thought maybe I should post on something that was very near and dear to those of old who, in God's good timing, were the great stalwarts standing against that whore of Babylon, the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

I have, in previous articles, discussed just a small bit on the great doctrine of Scripture as well-articulated in the Reformation by the Reformers called Sola Fide, i.e. Faith Alone. Martin Luther said that the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is one upon which the Church stands or falls. If she denies this truth, she falls. If she affirms it, she stands.

My friends, we are in a second period of darkness concerning this truth. This time, however, it is not merely the Roman Catholic Church which holds men captive to such falsehood. No, it is the majority of those "churches" who call themselves evangelical. Just because people may hold unwittingly to such beliefs does not justify the believing thereof. The Scriptures are exceptionally clear on the doctrines of Who justifies, how justification is secured, and to whom justification is given. For those who profess a strong belief in Scripture there is no excuse to believe the utter nonsense that is touted by most "evangelical" churches of this day.

Sadly, I must say that, in my experience, Baptist churches are the most ridiculous perpetuators of this muddying of Justification by Faith alone. By "Baptist" I do not mean Particular (Calvinistic) Baptists, but semi-Pelagian Baptists (Inconsistent Arminians). How so? Well, they hold to a very weak version (for lack of a better term) of Perseverance of the Saints. They believe in the eternal security of the believer, a.k.a. "once saved always saved" (OSAS). However, because they reject other major points of biblical doctrine (i.e. total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, etc.), they have no solid foundation upon which to base their belief in OSAS. They make one's profession of saving faith equal to possession of saving faith, when clearly such is not always the case.

To what does this lead? It leads to the false assurance for many many lost people who think, because of their one-time aisle-walking-sinner's-prayer-praying experience, they are saved from eternal hell. In turn, many other pagans see the ungodly lives of these professors and think, "Oh, so you can live however you like, and still go to heaven. Hmm…I don't buy that." You may ask, "Josh, why are you babbling on and on about this?" Because it is important to the major theme of this post. Semi-Pelagian Baptist churches are churning out thousands upon thousands of these professors that are not possessors, thus perpetuating this weak (and false) version of OSAS.

You think, "How does this apply to the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone?" Well, a proper and clear understanding of the simple doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone would clear all this mess up in a heartbeat. Saving Faith (which is believing in Christ alone by faith alone, thus being justified before God), according to Scripture and example, always leads to a life of good works and perseverance in the faith. These professors who lack possession would be "found out", disciplined, and either converted or further hardened in their condemnation and not be seen as Christians at all.

You then have other flavors of evangelicals who believe in a works righteousness and sinless perfectionism. These are the two extremes. One believes that you can live sinfully without repentance, so long as you once professed Christ, etc., while the other believes that you can only be saved by being in a non-sinful state at the time of death or rapture (a whole other post altogether!). This second group (typically Pentacostals, Assemblies of God, and other various Charismatic type evangelicals) lack any doctrine of Assurance of one's salvation. This, also, is due to a misunderstanding of Justification by Faith Alone.

You see, if in Adam all men fell (and they did), then all men were condemned. All were born unable to keep God's law perfectly. Keeping all but one law would not do. Thus, all men, by nature and practice, are condemned. How can such a people be redeemed? Well, they must keep the law perfectly. Can they? No. So what happened? God had a plan all along. He sent His Son to die on behalf of a people He had elected for and to Himself (John 6, Eph 1, etc.). These men, being by nature children of wrath (Eph 2), would be redeemed because of Christ's perfect obedience to God's law, and His perfect, sacrificial, substitutionary death in their place. Christ bore the wrath of God for the sins of the Elect that they would be…..JUSTIFIED. That's right. They didn't earn their own justification before the Holy God. Christ did.

So, this second group, if they could understand the essence of what justifcation is, how it was secured, and to whom it is applied, they could understand the doctrine of eternal security of the believer, and the assurance thereof. Yet, because they think somehow they can earn some brownie points with God by their wretched good works, they're blinded to their own depravity and need of redemption from the Perfect Lamb of God.

So this second dark age has hit us. The doctrine of Sola Fide once again is non existant to a dying world. What will we do? Lord, let a fire be stoked underneath our laziness, contentedness, and complacency, that we would burn with the passion of a Luther, Calvin, or a Knox to decry the foolish lie that there is any other way to be made right with God, other than faith alone in Christ alone. May it be so!

Categories
Doctrines of Grace

Sola Fide Part II: A Very Casual Primer

The ignorance pervading the Church today is quite disconcerting in many areas. I'd have to say that the most crucial area would be in that of the doctrine of justification. Martin Luther said the teaching of Justification was the article by which the Church would stand or fall. Similar to the time of Martin Luther, multitudes are in the dark concerning the true nature and application of justification. Not only are there those who teach justification can somehow be earned by one's own merit and ability, but many also teach one must keep themselves justified by their own merit and ability. Such a notion is far from biblical, and is no doubt due to both ignorance and, more pertinently, passivity by Christ's church in letting such be taught without fear of reprisal.

My intention is not to overwhelm you with theological jargon that might possibly muddy the clarity of the biblical doctrine of justification, but to share with you the simplicity of the doctrine in a nutshell.

First, a definition from Easton's Bible Dictionary (emphasis mine):

justification a forensic term, opposed to condemnation. As regards its nature, it is the judicial act of God, by which he pardons all the sins of those who believe in Christ, and accounts, accepts, and treats them as righteous in the eye of the law, i.e., as conformed to all its demands. In addition to the pardon (q.v.) of sin, justification declares that all the claims of the law are satisfied in respect of the justified. It is the act of a judge and not of a sovereign. The law is not relaxed or set aside, but is declared to be fulfilled in the strictest sense; and so the person justified is declared to be entitled to all the advantages and rewards arising from perfect obedience to the law (Rom. 5:1-10). It proceeds on the imputing or crediting to the believer by God himself of the perfect righteousness, active and passive, of his Representative and Surety, Jesus Christ (Rom. 10:3-9). Justification is not the forgiveness of a man without righteousness, but a declaration that he possesses a righteousness which perfectly and for ever satisfies the law, namely, Christ's righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 4:6-8). The sole condition on which this righteousness is imputed or credited to the believer is faith in or on the Lord Jesus Christ.

In another article I wrote:

Man…was created perfect. Man was given a "test", if you will, to either pass or fail. Man failed by disobeying God's clear command, and Adam, being the representative for all mankind, plunged all mankind into sin. In doing so, all persons born of man are born dead in their sins, unable to please God and unwilling to do so as well. Therefore, all men (and women and children, etc.) are born naturally and radically separated from God, in darkness.

That is to say, that when Adam fell, his sinfulness was imputed to us all who are born of woman (which would be, you guessed it, everybody). To have something imputed to you is equal to having whatever it may be attributed to you. So, when Adam sinned, since he represented all mankind, all mankind has Adam's sinfulness reckoned to them. In Adam, we all are guilty of Adam's sin. This is by imputation. Justification is the opposite of the imputation of Adam's unrighteousness. It is the imputation of Christ's righteousness into those who have by faith believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. So, briefly and succinctly, let me summarize justification.

Man can only be right with God by fulfilling/obeying every aspect of God's holy law. God will accept only perfection. Thus, we have the problem. Since man is born dead in his sin, only gratifying the desires of flesh, and under its dominion, he can never do that which is pleasing to God (i.e. obey all of God's law and never disobey it). All of this is very bad news…

Christ's purpose for coming to earth was the secure the justification of all those who had believe and would believe. Man could not do it. This why when someone believes or teaches justification as being accomplished by anything in addition to faith, they err greatly. The details of man's inability will be discussed more elaborately when we have some articles discussing what are known as "The Doctrines of Grace." Since man, by nature, could never attain perfection, thus fully satisfying God's standard, he would need a substitute. This is exactly what Jesus did to "justify the ungodly."Again, my intention is not to impart expertise or detail on this doctrine, but to clarify its essence. There is much more to justification in its details, but not necessary by way of introduction to the doctrine itself. As time goes by, I hope to be linking to articles that articulate the deeper aspects of the doctrines I introduce much better than I'd ever be able to communicate.

For now, just remember that being "right" with God cannot be earned. Rather, being "right" with God is a gift from God, and secured by way of justification. This justification was not something that could be cultivated by the inherent ability of man, rather it was something that had to be purchased by the God Man, Jesus Christ, Who lived and obeyed the Law of God perfectly, then died on behalf of those who believe. In His death as the Ultimate, Perfect Sacrifice, He purchased the justification of His people, ensuring their redemption. In other words, man is not/ cannot be saved by anything he has or does, but only by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Furthermore, man cannot keep his salvation by meritorious works or deeds, nor by earning God's favor. It is all of grace that only God would receive credit for such a miraculous truth. I would just like to leave you with a few pertinent passages that deal with justification by faith:

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.-Romans 3:28

In the preceding passage, Paul has just alluded to the fact that all men have sinned and fallen short of God's strandard. He then introduces this verse by declaring, "Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded." Thus, noting that no one can boast of themselves concerning their salvation.

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ,so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.-Galatians 2:15-16

Here Paul is sure to make it known that any who would boast of their ancestory or ethnicity would do so quite vainly. He makes it clear that all are on equal footing and that salvation, if obtained, is only done so by the faith which is a gift of God.

For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness-Romans 4:3-5

A beautiful illustration of Sola Fide. Notice the terminology "counted" or credited. He's clear to point out that a worker is worthy of his wages, but that one who receives money, yet didn't work…that's a gift!

That God would graciously give us His only Son, to secure us to the glory of His Name! What a precious inconceivable act of mercy! Soli Deo Gloria! To the Glory of God Alone!

Categories
Sacraments Theology

A Critique of Welty’s Use of Galatians in “From Circumcision to Baptism”

In a previous article, I posted Philip A's critique of Welty's article From Circumcision to Baptism.  I have posted my own critique of a foundational error made by Greg Welty and I include it here for your consideration.

Welty writes

What was the heresy of the Judaizers in the book of Galations? Fundamentally, their error was to contend that the command to circumcise was essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant and its promises and blessings. Thus, according to them, Gentile converts were required to be circumcised in order to be members of the family of God. But in this they were greatly mistaken, for in the New Covenant order of things, "circumcision is nothing" (1 Cor 7:19), and "neither circumcision or uncircumcision means anything" (Gal 5:6; cf. Gal 6:15). What they took to be essential to this everlasting covenant was in fact nonessential, and therefore done away with.

Welty is just flat wrong about the error of the Judaizers in Galatians. Read Galatians 3-4 for yourself. Nowhere does Paul once condemn the Judaizers for their trust in the sign "…as essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant." He misses the "fundamental" problem of the Judaizers. In fact, as I'll show, the Judaizers aren't even preserving the Abrahamic Covenant in the least. Listen to Paul:

Galations 3 1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth,[a] before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain””if indeed it was in vain? 5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

The error was trust in the Law. The error was a reliance upon the Law as a means of Justification. So who does Paul roll out as an example that the Judaizers' belief is all wet? Abraham!

6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[c] 7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”[d] 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.

Paul then returns to the point that he repeatedly hammers regarding the Judaizing heresy. He says it so often that one cannot miss his repeated refrain: Justification by the Law only brings a curse. So much for your trust in the Law Judiazers.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”[e] 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shalllive by faith.”[f] 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”[g] 13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”[h]), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

"You knucklhead Judaizers! Circumcision isn't even about keeping the Law!" is what Paul says here (Covenant Theology 101):

15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,”who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ,[j] that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Who do you think Paul is correcting here if not the Judaizers who think that Circumcision = Torah Keeping = Righteousness. This is the error that Paul is rebuking. Paul doesn't even have a problem with the physical act of circumcision, per se, but if you circumcise for the reason the Judaizers want you to then you've rejected the Gospel because you've rejected Grace.

Frankly, the problem with Welty's argument is that he needs to go back and read Galatians. This is frankly my biggest complaint as I've interacted with some other Baptists on these texts. Philip A alluded earlier to the way Welty wrests "circumcision is to no avail" snippets out of context and their meaning as Paul uses them. It's like Philip stated earlier, if you come to the text looking to justify Baptism and separate it from Circumcision then you run the danger of doing what Welty does by blowing by the basic error of the Judaizers. It turns the error on its head from Paul condemning the Judaizers for trusting in the Law (when it could only bring a curse) to an error of tying the sign to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. The Judiazers weren't even looking at the Abrahamic Covenant but were preserving their perversion of it!

Thus, the basic "error" here is Welty's exegesis of Galatians 3. Since he misses the point of Paul's condemnation of the Judaizers, he applies an erroneous conclusion to paedobaptism.

Categories
Doctrines of Grace

Sola Fide Part I: The Stench of Potpourri

Not realizing the ramifications that would ensue, Marty dropped his list of grievances on the Manager's (hereafter referred to as "The Man") desk. He had been working for Potpourri Plush for years and years. Faithfully and almost flawlessly executing all of his duties, he was most loyal to the Company. Yet, he didn't see it in such a light. He'd memorized and followed the Man's Memos crossing every t and dotting every i, yet he just knew something was missing. The other Employees had looked upon him in confusion, not understanding his rigorous determination to please the President, according to the standards delineated by the Man. Regardless of the "better" Marty had done and the more disciplined he'd become, this missing component's absence had grown like a Dark Cloud looming over him…consuming, overwhelming his entire livelihood. Potpourri Plush was his life!

If he ever wanted to be graced with the presence of the President, he would have to work hard. He felt it impossible. The more he mulled over the Man's memos, the more inconsistencies and self-contradictions he found. This troubled him. Surely the Man was aware of such. Maybe it was a test. On one hand, the memos called for perfect attendance to Potpourri Plush's scheduled work days. On the other hand, if certain employees missed, they could "buy out" the Man and be free from fear of reprisal. Yet, in the Man's memos, there was no acknowledgement or attempt to reconcile the two apprarent contradictions.

As Marty pressed forward, albeit in blind loyalty to the Man's memos, Providence intervened. Due to some recent renovation, Marty was asked by the Man to relocate to a much older office space. In fact, it was one of the originating spaces of the Company. While setting up his new office, Marty found a book called "The President's Manual". With veracious curiosity, Marty began to feast upon this presidential manna, noting its incredible similarities to the Man's memos…but without the usual accompanying interpretations and traditions forced upon it. Unlike the Man's self-contradictory, tradition-gridded memos, the President's Manual had a beautiful cohesion about it…freeing Marty of the lingering Cloud above him.

Marty noted several liberating things in the President's Manual. He learned that Potpourri was not as complicated and taxing as the Man's memos had espoused. In fact, Marty learned that Potpourri Plush was never intended to function as a business in the first place! The President's Scent was always intended as a free gift, given to Whom He pleased, whensoever He pleased. Furthermore, it wasn't even called "Potpourri" originally. Nor was "Plush" anywhere in the mixture. It was a new name altogether! A name given by mere managers, in rebellion to the President's initial intentions. Oh how Marty had misunderstood the President for so long, via the distorted picture he'd been handed from the Man's memos. He'd thought it was a business. He'd thought it was an insurmountable task, only earned by militant perfection.

The President's Manual told a different story. Though many words were similar to the phraseology found in the Man's memos, they spoke of two very different views. The President was not a malicious businessman, hungry for lucre and gain; rather, He was a gracious man, giving His Scent to those who realized their great stench. The managers had seen fit, over the years, to ignore their own stench and profit from the destitute, who knew the gravity of their condition. Marty knew his well. He remembered the Dark Cloud which lingered about him. How it weighed him down and pushed him to despondency. Now there was New Hope!

Marty could not hold his zeal, nor keep it to himself. Immediately he began to list grievances against the Man's memos, in light of the President's Manual. Working furiously in time, he hoped to have the Man reconsider his ways and bring massive reforms. He also noted that if the other Employees saw these thoughts, they too might be liberated from the Dark Cloud. The next Day would be one of the Company's most celebrated work Day. Every year on this Day their was a concentrated effort of workers and managers alike to focus on the "good" of the Company. Marty was resolved to bring his grievances to the Man this particular Day. Little did he realize the shockwaves that would resound in response to his meager thoughts.

Not realizing the ramifications that would ensue, Marty dropped his list of grievances on the Manager's desk. Before the Man ever had opportunity to see it, his secretary took notice of it. She could not take her eyes or thoughts from it's liberating, confrontational, tradition-challenging thoughts. She knew what to do. She would make copies and put it in all the Employees' memorandum inboxes. Furthermore, she would scan the document, putting it into electronic form, and email it throughout. Such was the beginning of the Reformation of the President's Company, bringing it back to its original roots and proclaiming the true nature of the President: Graciousness and Freedom From the Madeup Memos of the Managers.

On October 31st, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of Wittenburg Chapel. Much like Marty (ahem…pun intended), Luther discovered some heart-wrenching inconsistencies in the establishment to which he belonged, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). He recognized the poor in heart being bogged down by the doctrines and commandments of men, thinking the way to God was through the mammoth RCC and her damning, unbiblical doctrines. Their only hope, according to these leaders (i.e. the managers, the Man) was to hope they could earn God's favor by way of works, money, indulgences, etc. The RCC's doctrine of Popery (potpourri 😉 plush) was a dark cloud making one fallible man the purveyor of all "truth". However, God had a plan to reveal an essential doctrine of Biblical Christianity to a monk. This monk was Martin Luther who, by the grace of God, was changed by the fundamental doctrine Sola Fide.

Sola Fide means "justification by faith alone." Realizing the dissemination of such truth would turn them over on their backs, the leaders of the RCC scurried in frenzies to stop the spread of such a liberating doctrine. No longer would men feel the impossible pressure of having to earn their salvation via the extrabiblical commands of the RCC. No longer would it be about money, greed, corruption, etc. Rather, to whom God gives salvation, He gives freely by faith. This would be Luther's Reformation Rally Cry. In Part II we will look more at the actual doctrine of Sola Fide.