Tag: faith

Categories
Law

The Lord Will Provide

The Lord Will Provide –

Pictue by Gustav Doré And Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father!” And he said, “Here am I, my son.” He said, “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” Abraham said, “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together. – Genesis 22:7-8

Abraham, at this point, has already been counted righteous by his faith (Gen 15:6), so we know he had strong faith. It is again exemplified here in this foreshadowing of Christ’s precious sacrifice. Abraham, his “only son” Isaac, and some servants have been travelling for a few days and the Scripture recounts Abraham telling his servants this (Gen 22:5): Stay here with the donkey; I and the boy will go over there and worship and come again to you.

Now, keep in mind, the Lord has already commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, the one through which Abraham’s offspring would be named. So, you may be wondering, “What’s going through Abraham’s mind right now? How could he, without doubt, without questioning, and without hesitation just up and go and do this?” By faith! By trust! By belief in the inherent goodness of God and His devotion to His own glory.

You see, Abraham could tell the servants with confidence that both he and Isaac would be back (v5), though God had commanded Abraham to kill Isaac. So, one of two things was going to happen in the mind of Abraham. Either, 1) Isaac was going to be sacrificed, burned, but then somehow restored by the Lord, or 2) God would provide a substitute. Either way, God would fulfill His covenant obligation to Abraham, and Abraham believed it! That’s great faith, folks!

You know, when I used to read this account I pictured a somber, grieving Abraham, moping along with Isaac, on their way to Mt. Moriah. But now, more and more, I don’t know if such was the case. I think Abraham knew, by faith, that God is a covenant keeping God, and that, somehow, Isaac would be spared. He’d have to be spared in order for what was told him in Gensis 15:6 to be true. Somehow, Abraham knew God would come through and be Faithful.

O, that we would have the faith of an Abraham! We have God’s promises in Scripture, yet we doubt so much! We must, despite all outward circumstances, or inner feelings, or “uncontestable evidences”, we must believe God’s promises and that He will accomplish them regardless of what we think, see, or “know”. You see, no one, no thing, can thwart His plan, stay His hand, catch Him by surprise, sneak up on Him, or even begin to be familiar with Him. He is the everlasting God Who is forever to be praised. He is the Lord. That is His Name. His glory He gives to no other, and He shares not His praise with idols (Is 42:8). Blessed be the Lord God Almighty, for Almighty He truly is! HE WILL PROVIDE.

 

 

[Reformers, Puritans, and a Geek]

On the Consumption of Alchohol and Christian Liberty

I picked out one of the posts from the PuritanBoard to discuss an issue with respect to liberty. bfrank writes:

A few years ago I was sitting outside on a patio enjoying a pint with a buddy, having theological and personal discussions…there was absolutely no problem in my conscience or faith about the issue. I knew the Scriptures did not condemn alcohol, but drunkeness. One thing we both gleaned from the afternoon was that if Jesus Christ Himself walked into the place we would have no problem whatsoever. However, if some of the members from church walked in it would be a very uncomfortable situation. Of course this caused further study on my part so that I was certain I wasn't using my liberty for license and that I was on solid biblical ground. I had a friend who was meeting with a pastor friend. The pastor told him that drinking in any form should not be tolerated. He said that the Christian should avoid the appearance of evil, so as to not cause a weaker brother to stumble. He preceded to order a virgin strawberry daquiri. My friend began to scratch his head in disbelief…thinking, "Isn't this the appearance of "evil"? LOL

First, I want to correct the "pastor friend" in the story above. The "weaker brother" in Paul's Epistles is the Pastor! The weaker brother is the Christian who is overly scrupulous where God permits liberty of conscience. Jews who were still convicted, for instance, that they had to abstain from pork were "weaker brothers" and Paul is commanding the Gentile brethren not to give unnecessary offense to cause them to stumble.

NOW, here is the rub. I'm starting to think that I am probably too tolerant of what is not a "weaker brother" spirit with respect to things indifferent but a PHARASAICAL spirit with respect to things indifferent. I believe the response to the weaker brother ought to be done carefully and tenderly but the Pharisee ought to be withstood to his face as a Scriptural pattern.

Calvin's treatment of Christian liberty is quoted in part below and he does a great job of differentiating between a personal scruple and a human tradition that super-adds to the Scriptures that binds the consciences of men. Does the Southern Baptist Conventions' ruling that those who consume alchohol should be excluded from Church Office constitute something that Christians should condemn as Pharasaical?  Incidentally, the ruling says that a Southern Baptist is not even permitted to work at an establishment that serves alcoholic beverages.

More basically, however, what if a pastor is teaching this? Should we, like Paul did to Peter, withstand that spirit and, if so, how?  Pastors and Elders, after all, are not supposed to be those that are weak in the faith.  It is, frankly, a sad state of affairs that those who ought to be teachers of men (and are in such positions) need to be taught on the basic principles of the Gospel.  For make no mistake about it:  the issue of Christian Liberty stabs at the very heart of the Gospel and those who begin on the path of the Pharisee run the risk of losing far more than their Christian Liberty.

Without further ado, here is John Calvin from his treatment on Christian Liberty in the Instituties of the Christian Religion

11. I will here make some observations on offenses, what distinctions are to be made between them, what kind are to be avoided and what disregarded. This will afterwards enable us to determine what scope there is for our liberty among men. We are pleased with the common division into offense given and offense taken, since it has the plain sanction of Scripture, and not improperly expresses what is meant. If from unseasonable levity or wantonness, or rashness, you do any thing out of order or not in its own place, by which the weak or unskillful are offended, it may be said that offense has been given by you, since the ground of offense is owing to your fault. And in general, offense is said to be given in any matter where the person from whom it has proceeded is in fault. Offense is said to be taken when a thing otherwise done, not wickedly or unseasonably, is made an occasion of offense from malevolence or some sinister feeling. For here offense was not given, but sinister interpreters ceaselessly take offense. By the former kind, the weak only, by the latter, the ill-tempered and Pharisaical are offended. Wherefore, we shall call the one the offense of the weak, the other the offense of Pharisees, and we will so temper the use of our liberty as to make it yield to the ignorance of weak brethren, but not to the austerity of Pharisees. What is due to infirmity is fully shown by Paul in many passages. “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye.” Again, “Let us not judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother’s way;” and many others to the same effect in the same place, to which, instead of quoting them here, we refer the reader. The sum is, “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification.” elsewhere he says, “Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak.” Again “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake.” “Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other.” Finally, “Give none offense, neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God.” Also in another passage, “Brethren, ye have been called into liberty, only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.”46 455455 61 461 Rom. 14:1, 13; 16:1; 1 Cor. 8:9; 10:25, 29, 32; Gal. 5:13. Thus, indeed, it is: our liberty was not given us against our weak neighbors, whom charity enjoins us to serve in all things, but rather that, having peace with God in our minds, we should live peaceably among men. What value is to be set upon the offense of the Pharisees we learn from the words of our Lord, in which he says, “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind,” (Mt. 15:14). The disciples had intimated that the Pharisees were offended at his words. He answers that they are to be let alone that their offense is not to be regarded.

12. The matter still remains uncertain, unless we understand who are the weak and who the Pharisees: for if this distinction is destroyed, I see not how, in regard to offenses, any liberty at all would remain without being constantly in the greatest danger. But Paul seems to me to have marked out most clearly, as well by example as by doctrine, how far our liberty, in the case of offense, is to be modified or maintained. When he adopts Timothy as his companion, he circumcises him: nothing can induce him to circumcise Titus (Acts 16:3; Gal. 2:3). The acts are different, but there is no difference in the purpose or intention; in circumcising Timothy, as he was free from all men, he made himself the servant of all: “Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ), that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (1 Cor. 9:20-22). We have here the proper modification of liberty, when in things indifferent it can be restrained with some advantage. What he had in view in firmly resisting the circumcision of Titus, he himself testifies when he thus writes: “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you,” (Gal. 2:3-5). We here see the necessity of vindicating our liberty when, by the unjust exactions of false apostles, it is brought into danger with weak consciences. In all cases we must study charity, and look to the edification of our neighbor. “All things are lawful for me,” says he, “but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth,” (1 Cor. 10:23, 24). There is nothing plainer than this rule, that we are to use our liberty if it tends to the edification of our neighbor, but if inexpedient for our neighbor, we are to abstain from it. There are some who pretend to imitate this prudence of Paul by abstinence from liberty, while there is nothing for which they less employ it than for purposes of charity. Consulting their own ease, they would have all mention of liberty buried, though it is not less for the interest of our neighbor to use liberty for their good and edification, than to modify it occasionally for their advantage. It is the part of a pious man to think, that the free power conceded to him in external things is to make him the readier in all offices of charity.

Autumn Color and the Death of the Amish Children

From my blog

Thou art good, and doest good…Ps 119:68

Colors converge toward copper here, passing red, not quite gold. Our chickens are deep golden-buff and scarlet-combed. Crimson-leaved blueberries and cayenne-orange mountain ash berries, saturated in mid-autumn sun, hang on, closer to life than dormancy.

Even in my pleasant garden, I am never unaware of perturbation. Intermittent sirens and helicopters herald the presence of sin and pain and need.

This week a small Amish community in Pennsylvania buried five schoolgirls, murdered despite the girls’ likely compliance with their killer’s demand that they pray for him to protect him from carrying out his horrific crime.

Today, as are all days, is a good day to be a Calvinist.

Only a Calvinist sees events like this in a light that comports with God’s own testimony: the absolute sovereignty of his perfect will. God’s sovereignty prevails over peace and over perturbation.

Does this make Calvinists callous? That is a testy and ignorant misconception. We grieve the grievous. We know the grievous could always be more grievous. We see restraint present in the world, despite sin. We understand the end of all things, including ourselves, is the glory of God. To God alone the glory.

Is God implacable? No; he is merciful. His law and his judgments are perfect and righteous (Ps 19:7; Ps 119:7). Our God is in the heavens, and he hath done whatsoever he pleased (Ps 115:3).

Did it please God to have a crazed reprobate kill five children? Behold the evidence. Yes, it did. It pleased him to have crazed reprobates kill his own son. Had it not, our sin would be unredeemed, and we would justly suffer in hell, just as surely as crazed reprobate killers of little girls.

A hard thing. But sin is sin, and death is death, and death does not always come packaged neatly wrapped in human poetic justice.

Our faith rests in him whose righteous judgments are perfect.

God is a righteous judge,
Yea, a God that hath indignation every day Ps 7:11.

I will give thanks unto Jehovah according to his righteousness,
And will sing praise to the name of Jehovah Most High Ps 7:17.

Categories
Devotion

Saving Faith

Faith lives in a broken heart. He cried out with tears, “Lord, I believe.” True faith is always in a heart bruised for sin. They, therefore, whose hearts were never touched for sin, have no faith. If a physician should tell us there was a herb that would help us against all infections, but it always grows in a watery place; if we should see a herb like it in colour, leaf, smell, blossom, but growing upon a rock, we should conclude that it was the wrong herb. So saving faith always grows in a heart humbled for sin, in a weeping eye and a tearful conscience.

Categories
Gospels and Acts

Unclean!

Luke 17:11-19

Now it happened as He went to Jerusalem that He passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.  Then as He entered a certain village, there met Him ten men who were lepers, who stood afar off.  And they lifted up their voices and said, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!”
So when He saw them, He said to them, “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” And so it was that as they went, they were cleansed.
And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, returned, and with a loud voice glorified God,  and fell down on his face at His feet, giving Him thanks. And he was a Samaritan.
So Jesus answered and said, “Were there not ten cleansed? But where are the nine?   Were there not any found who returned to give glory to God except this foreigner?”  And He said to him, “Arise, go your way. Your faith has made you well.”

And so we come to an event in Jesus’ ministry as He is on His way to Jerusalem.  Luke mentions, in passing that Jesus is passing between Galilee and Samaria.

Samaria was considered an unclean region for Jews.  They viewed the Samaritans as dogs, as unclean people.  The Samaritans were related to the Jews as the Northern Kingdom of Israel had existed there.  But the Northern Kingdom had passed away centuries before due to the idolatry of that nation.  The Samaritans had intermarried with the pagan nations and had only retained a perverted form of the religion of the Scriptures.  They worshipped in the high places in the North and not in Jerusalem as commanded nor did they offer sacrifices in Jerusalem.  And so, many Jews would walk completely around Samaria if they ever had to venture outside of Judea.  They would rather go days out of their way by foot then even touch the unclean soil of Samaria.

And so it is in passing that Luke mentions that Christ is passing near that region on His way to Jerusalem.

As Christ is entering a village He encounters ten lepers who stood afar off.

Why did they stand afar off? Why did Luke mention that Christ encountered them outside of the town? Let us turn to Leviticus Chapter 13.

I will not read the entirety of Leviticus 13 but it gives several different examples and rules for the Priests to use to determine whether not a person has leprosy. Leprosy is a term to refer to different types of skin diseases, the worst of which would cause hands, legs, nose, and other body parts to wither as the person became increasingly disfigured until they eventually died a horrific death. Whether a milder form of the disease, Leviticus 13 gives many examples of how to diagnose and the end result is the same in all cases for the leper. Let me read for you the concluding verses in Leviticus 13:45-46
Lev 13:45-46

Now the leper on whom the sore is, his clothes shall be torn and his head bare; and he shall cover his mustache, and cry,’Unclean! Unclean!’  He shall be unclean. All the days he has the sore he shall be unclean. He is unclean, and he shall dwell alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp.

Have any of you ever had friends who have found a spot on the skin and gone to the doctor who grows concerned about it?  The person has to come back after a number of days to have a biopsy performed on the spot and even wait further as lab results reveal whether or not that person has cancer.  What concern we all have for the person as we wonder:  “Does my dear friend have cancer.”  What prayers might we lift up for that person as they undergo treatment and receive the blessings of modern medicine.  We may even embrace that friend and let them cry on our shoulder as they express their fear that the cancer might spread.

Beloved, a leprous man could only be so lucky to merely get a diagnosis of cancer.  Consider Levticus 5:2-5

“…if a person touches any unclean thing, whether it is the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean livestock, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and he is unaware of it, he also shall be unclean and guilty.  Or if he touches human uncleanness — whatever uncleanness with which a man may be defiled, and he is unaware of it — when he realizes it, then he shall be guilty.
‘Or if a person swears, speaking thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or to do good, whatever it is that a man may pronounce by an oath, and he is unaware of it — when he realizes it, then he shall be guilty in any of these matters.
‘And it shall be, when he is guilty in any of these matters, that he shall confess that he has sinned in that thing;”

Do you understand the implications for leprosy?  A leper was considered human uncleanness.  You could not hug a leper who received a diagnosis from the priest.  You could not even touch him or her.  That was a sin.  If you did so, even by accident, you had to confess your sin and offer a sacrifice at the Temple.  I don’t mean to state the obvious here but lepers were human beings too.  They had mothers and fathers, they had wives and children at one point.  Then one morning they wake up and find a spot on their skin.  They try washing it but, over days and weeks the spot doesn’t seem to go away.  What fear they must have experienced as they walked to the priest.  Can you even imagine the horrible words of the priest as he says to a man or a woman:  YOU HAVE LEPROSY.  YOU ARE UNCLEAN.

Oh the horror of it.  I cannot weep with my wife.  I cannot hold my children.  I cannot embrace a friend and cry on his shoulder.  Even worse, according to the Law he must stay outside of town and every time a person comes near him he must yell out “Unclean!”  I cannot even imagine such a horrible condition.

And so it is with people in misery that the unclean gather together as lepers would into colonies and Christ meets ten of them on His way to Jerusalem.  We understand all the more now why in Luke 17:12, why the lepers are afar off.  We should also appreciate why in verse 13 there is anguish in their voice as they cry:  “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.”

And Christ, the one who came to give Mercy, told them to present themselves to the priest.  A very strange command is it not?  Not so strange and I again commend to you the Study of God’s Word.  You see in Leviticus 14, it gives the instructions for the cleansing of healed lepers.  The ceremony is very elaborate and requires the sacrifice of doves and washings and, after a week, the leper may be pronounced clean by the Priest and rejoin his family.  This was unfortunately, very rare, and the OT only records a couple of miraculous healings of leprosy in the Old Testament.

So the lepers are obeying this command and, on their way, shortly after leaving, they realize they are cleansed.  Perhaps some of them had withered hands restored.  Christ’s healing was always so powerful in Scriptures that people knew, without a doubt, they had been healed.

What joy!  What a blessing!  I am cleansed!  Years of pain.  Years of private suffering.  Years of reproach calling out to passersby:  “Unclean!”  No more pain of seeing little children run from you afraid.  I will see my family again!  I’ll embrace my wife.  I will hold my child!

And so, as dutiful Jews, 9 of the 10 continue on their way to the Priest to obey the requirements of the Law and be pronounced clean.   But they don’t all continue on their way.

No.  One man,  A SAMARITAN, returns in a loud voice, glorifying God.  Not only that, He falls down at Jesus’ feet in worship of Him, thanking Him for healing Him.  He thanks Him for delivering Him from His leprosy.

But we have a problem here don’t we?  The problem is that this man has not undergone the cleansing rite specified by the Law.  Leviticus 14:9 makes it very clear that one must undergo the full ritual cleansing, wait a week, shave off all their hair all over their body and then they will be pronounced clean by the priest.  This man has not been pronounced clean and so, according to the Law, he is very much UNCLEAN.  Add to that, he is a Samaritan, a dog, a person from an unclean land.

THIS MAN IS TOUCHING JESUS!

Beloved, this is powerful stuff.  You see, a normal Jew could not touch an unclean thing and remain undefiled.  A normal person became unclean and had to undergo cleansing and repent of sin when they touched unclean things.  Unclean things made the ceremonially “clean” people unclean.  That’s the way of the Law.

But not Christ.  This is the power of the Messiah.  This is the power of the Son of God.  Christ was the truly CLEAN one.  He was the only Clean One in fact.  When Christ came forward and reached out His hand to touch the unclean thing, that thing did not have the POWER to corrupt the Son of God.  No.  Christ made that which was unclean, CLEAN.  He touched unclean dead bodies and they rose from the grave.  He touched women with discharges and they were cleansed.  All through the Gospels we see Light dispelling the darkness.  We see Christ, the clean one, the whole one, making that which was broken, that which was unclean, restored.

Christ looks down with compassion on this Samaritan man at His feet and receives the worship that is due Him for Christ is the Son of God.  Angels refused worship as being only worthy of God.  Christ receives the Worship from this man whom He has restored and then He marvels:

Luke 17:17-19
So Jesus answered and said, “Were there not ten cleansed? But where are the nine?  Were there not any found who returned to give glory to God except this foreigner?”  And He said to him, “Arise, go your way. Your faith has made you well.”

What do you mean Jesus?  The nine are on their way to the Temple.  That’s what the LAW requires.  That’s what a Pharisee would have said.

Jesus remarks that only the foreigner, the only one who wasn’t a Jew, was the one who came back to Worship God.  The other’s missed the whole point.

You see beloved, Christ did not come to be a magic worker.  He didn’t just beam out powers to show off and to merely cure disease.  Sure Lazarus rose from the dead but, years later, he did die and they had a funeral all over for him.  Sure, it’s great that these men were free of their physical affliction here on this Earth but they too are now dead.

Ten Lepers had heard about Jesus and ran into Him that day.  They must have heard that He healed people.  Ten lepers called out to Jesus that day.  Ten lepers went on their way in obedience to His command.  Only one returned and worshipped God.  The other nine were healed in their body but missed the whole point of their healing.  Their healing attested to the Son of God.  Their healing attested to His authority over the Law itself.  In obeying the letter of the Law they missed the Spirit of the Law.

And so it was that Jesus said to the Samaritan:  “Your faith has made you well.”  All of the lepers had received healing but only one returned to express His faith in the Son of God.  Only one of them understood that the most important healing of all was the healing that Christ was to provide to reconcile mankind back to a Holy God.  And so Christ sent a true Worshipper of God on His way.  A man saved by faith in the Son of God.

Leprosy is a great picture of our fallen spiritual condition.  We were all once enemies of God.  We were the unclean ones.  Our first parents were born clean and then rebelled against the Lord of the Universe.  All of their descendants, including us, have been born unclean spiritual lepers.  Our souls are spiritually dark and decaying.  As the Pharisees were, we often look really good on the outside, but the inside is a cesspool of filth and sin.  As Romans 1:29-32 so accurately expresses about mankind:

Rom 1:29-32
…being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

And so at one time, in God’s presence, we were forced to draw our hands to our mouths and shout “UNCLEAN!”  And God had every right to leave us to die in the horrible state of sin.  It is we who had sinned against Him and not He against us.

But God is rich in Mercy.  God is rich in compassion.  He sent Christ to live for us in complete obedience and He sent Christ to die for us so that our sin, our filth, might be washed away.

And so, Christ is being proclaimed to you this day.  If you have never heard the call for the healing of your souls and you yet remain defiled in your sins then Christ is being lifted up before you in your midst.  Do you see the filth of your sin?  Do you smell the stench of a life that is causing your very soul to rot from the inside out?  Christ is before you.

“JESUS, MASTER, HAVE MERCY ON ME.”

He will cleanse you from your sins so that you may fall at His feet and worship Him.

Categories
Apologetics Defending the Faith

Reflections On My Debate With Dan Barker, And The Myriad Comments Regarding It

I must say that it's been a fascinating week reading the various comments from both sides (atheist and Christian) on my debate with Dan Barker.  For those who have not heard it, the debate can be downloaded from this site (3rd one down under "free downloads").  Unsurprisingly, most atheists think Barker prevailed and most Christians think I prevailed.  I obviously think I faithfully defended the faith.  In this entry I'll make some comments on [1] how I think the debate went and [2] the various reviews given by atheists and [3] the main points they think Barker won.  We'll go in that order.

[1]  Basically, I think it's simple.  As far as the debate goes, and objective scoring goes, I feel Barker did not win.  Here's my basic run down of how the debate went.

I opened with a sustained argument, arguing that [1] with respect to beliefs atheism was non-rational since, according to Barker, atheism is not a belief.  And, [2] with respect to the other area where rationality is attributed (agent, or cognizer, rationality), Barker was agent irrational.  I pointed out three internal inconsistencies in Barker's worldview and gave a brief description of how my worldview allows for basic paradigms of rationality; whereas Barker's undermines them.  I also quoted Barker saying that if my worldview's presuppositions are accepted then Christianity is internally consistent.

Barker opened with an argument that atheism is rational since there is no evidence for God's existence, the Bible mentions irrational things, and he does not need to account for logic or morality because they are not "things."  Barker also tried to show that the concept of God was incoherent with his FANG argument.

Then we had cross examination.  During mine Barker admitted that he had a functionalist understanding of the mind, he was a conceptualist, logic did not exist, and that cosmically humans were no different than broccoli but that we subjectively assign value, which may be a wrong assignment, to humans.  Barker also admitted that given our worldview God is not evil for punishing sinners.

During Barker's he tried to show that I was inconsistent for believing that a snake talked to Adam and Eve in the garden if I didn't accept his claim that a cat spoke Spanish to him.  He also tried to throw me into disrepute by claiming that John Calvin had Servetus burned, and since Calvin was a Christian this means that Christianity was somehow to blame (yeah, I didn`t think it followed either).

During my rebuttal period I gave an argument against Barker's FANG.  I refuted his conceptualism as well as his functionalism.  I also refuted his pragmatic justification for induction, pointing out that [a] it was not an epistemic justification and [b]  even Barker's book points out that just because something works does not make it rational.  I then gave a positive argument for how Christianity accounts for the three paradigms of rationality I mentioned in my opening.  I pointed out that given Barker's worldview there was no survival value in thinking in terms of modalities, but given our worldview this fit perfectly.  I argued that given the doctrines of providence and God's covenant keeping nature, we had a basis for inductive reasoning.  I also pointed out that there are moral obligations and only persons obligate.  I then pointed out that if there are universal moral obligations this is because there is a universal person.  I also quickly pointed out that Barker's evidentialism had an infinite regress attached to it and if he tried to halt it by foundationalism he needed to deal with the likes of Plantinga (i.e., one's belief in foundationalism is not basic (in the classical sense) and is not inferred (by induction or deduction) from his basic beliefs (whatever those are!, Barker failed to specify) and is therefore self-referentially incoherent).

Barker's rebuttal failed to address any of my arguments.  He did not mention any of the refutations of his FANG, conceptualism, functionalism, morality, and pragmatism as an epistemic defense of induction. that I leveled at him.  He pointed out that, according to his subjective preference, God was a meany.  He again claimed that logic was not a "thing."  And, lastly, he said that if logic was dependant on God's nature that meant God could have made different laws of logic.  And, he again admitted that man is no different than broccoli, in the cosmic sense.

In my closing I pointed out that I was not reifying logic. I pointed out that Barker was begging the question against metaphysical realism.  I also quoted an actual example of the fallacy of reification found in Barker's book.  I pointed out that he had no basis for making his moral claims, except for a subjective preference, which does not admit one to objectively condemn Hitler or God!  I pointed out that God could not have made the laws of logic different (at least not in my worldview) but, given Barker's view (i.e., logic is a function of the physical brain), we could have evolved differently with different laws of logic.  I then called Barker to repentance, pointing out that his philosophically shoddy worldview was a result of sin.

In Barker's closing he again failed to interact with any of my rebuttals.  He just asserted, again, that logic was not a "thing."  Barker then ranted about how God was a big meany and he would tell Jesus and His Father to go to hell because they were mean for creating it (I guess Barker doesn't like it when someone, cosmically, fries broccoli, because one only should boil it!).  Barker ranted some more about Calvin and even claimed Calvin used the King James Version of the Holy Bible! (Not only is he ignorant of basic philosophical issues, he is ignorant of history as well.)

And that's my assessment of the debate.

[2]  With respects to the various atheists take on our debate I've not seen any one analyze the debate.  Most of the comments seem to refer to me as an idiot and just assert that Barker owned me.  The few comments they do make, which have substance to them, will be dealt with below.  Many claim that I sounded angry.  I've not had one Christian tell me that I did sound that way, though.  My wife, friends, and various pastors have said I sounded fine.  Also, some atheists have claimed that I was unprofessional in that I went over my time limit.  Actually, I never did once, but Barker did on every one of his segments (save his opening)!  The only time the moderator had to tell me to stop talking was during the Q and A session.  The problem here is that there was never a specified time limit and he had told me via email to keep talking until he felt I talked long enough.

[3]  Basically, the main areas of contention in my performance was my supposed reification fallacy, and my belief in a talking snake.  I'll deal with these in turn.

Reification:  I dealt with that here:  Fallacy of Reification.

Talking Snakes and Induction:  To even comment on this shows me the level of philosophical sophistication the internet atheists (and Barker) are playing at.  Basically the argument goes like this:

You're irrational for believing that a snake talked to Adam and Eve.  Induction tells us this can't happen.  If you only believe in talking snakes because a book told you so then what about if I say a cat talked to me?  If you reject that a cat talked to me, you should also reject that a snake talked to Adam and Eve.

That's the basic gist of the argument.  Some brief comments should serve to put it to bed.

  1.  I believe the biblical account.  If true, this refutes the inductive generalization. Therefore, one must undermine the biblical account before one claims it can't be correct.
  2.  To just dismiss the biblical account is called begging the question.
  3.  Induction does not tell us what is impossible.
  4.  To put Barker's say-so and the Bible's (as God's word) say-so on the same level begs the question.  It does not follow that because I don't believe Barker I must also not believe the Bible, especially given my other beliefs.
  5. How am I irrational for believing this story in the Bible?  Given my worldview I believe that this is God's word and He does not lie.  Taking something on the authority of someone who never lies is not irrational.  Thus the argument assumes that God is not the ultimate authority and the Bible is not His word, which begs the question against my worldview.  
  6.  Even if I did accept a talking cat, how's that a problem for my worldview?  I see how it fails to prove me irrational.  Even an evolutionist should have no problem admitting that through mutations we can get talking cats.
  7.  Parrots talk.
  8.  In "The Art of Reasoning," atheist David Kelly makes claims about what constitutes a good inductive argument (457-460):

[a]  To form an inductive generalization the sample should be sufficiently numerous and various.

[b]  We should look for disconfirming as well as confirming instances of a generalization.

[c]  We should consider whether a link between S and P is plausible in light of other knowledge we posses.

So the problems here with Barker's argument are numerous.

i.  This is an account of what happened pre-fall.  All his samples are post-fall samples.

ii.  Satan used the snake, Barker has only sampled "non-possessed" snakes.

iii.  As T-blogger Jason Engwer has pointed out, many  commentaries argue that what was called a serpent before the fall became the creature that we call a "snake" today.  Hence the objection assumes that what we call a "snake" today was the creature before the fall.

iv.  The Bible, as disconfirming evidence, was dismissed out of hand as wrong simply because it was disconfirming evidence!

v.  Given points 1-4, this affects [c].  Given knowledge about the world if theism is true, a talking snake is no problem.  Only if this is dismissed, a priori, do we have a problem.

vi.  Thus as I claimed in the debate Barker simply begged the question.

So in closing I fail to see how Barker proved my worldview was irrational at all.  Granted he came in assuming that is was irrational, given the falsity of theism, but that's uninteresting.  Given theism, atheism is irrational.  Basically all that happened is that Barker claimed he disagreed with my worldview.  But, we already knew that!  So why did he bother to show up?  Other than that, not answering any of my arguments and rebuttals does not constitute winning a debate in any book I know of.   Claiming that Christianity is morally bankrupt, while simultaneously admitting that your moral foundation is your subjective opinion, does not constitute winning a debate.  Assuming nominalism, does not constitute winning a debate. So, regardless of whether you agree with my position or not, I think any sensible person will agree that Christian theism came out on top Monday night.  If you disagree with me, know that on Barker's worldview, cosmically, we're just two vegetables who've happened to grow differently, and that's it.  But, hey, the debate is public and available

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.