Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Posts Tagged ‘Martin Luther’

Teen Girls Rap On Martin Luther Versus Pope Leo

Posted by Job on October 10, 2008

The sound is kind of low. However, it helps that you can mostly read the lyrics on the screen behind them.

Advertisements

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Martin Luther’s 97 Theses (The Ones That Weren’t Nailed To The Door)

Posted by Job on August 23, 2008

Everyone is familiar with Martin Luther’s 95 theses nailed to the door that started the Protestant Reformation. What is probably not as widely known is that it was Luther’s SECOND document challenging Roman Catholicism, and furthermore was not intended to start any great controversy, but was rather meant only to provoke theological debate among Luther’s peers at the University of Wittenburg. It was Luther’s FIRST document, the 97 theses, that he originally intended to use to challenge the Roman Catholic Church. However, because his original challenge dealt primarily with doctrinal and practical issues, while it was accepted among Luther’s circle at Wittenburg (who had already been heavily influenced by Luther’s preaching for several years prior, meaning that the field had been plowed), it went no further. So, the 95 theses was meant as a followup to keep the internal debate going. Now realize that the 95 theses were not nearly as theological, but was instead much more practical, speaking directly to the religious, political, economic, and social conditions of the day, and in that manner actually more closely resembled the preaching of Jesus Christ, Peter, and John the Baptist than his prior theological manifesto which is listed below.

This truly demonstrates that God works in ways that man cannot understand, predict, or comprehend. Luther’s first document that he intended to provoke a wide debate based on his deep theological insights went nowhere, much to his disappointment, and he actually may have even given up on his reform agenda. But his second document, written after he regarded his original plan to be a failure with the intent of merely stimulating a debate among his adherents and made its challenge based on the way that people worshiped and lived rather than what they believed, was what God used to change the world!

From this we can perhaps draw the lesson that while God certainly cares about and uses to change and transform us what we believe (orthodoxy) it is how we worship and live (orthopraxy) that God uses to transform others. Orthodoxy is what God sees, orthopraxy is what the Holy Spirit causes other people, especially non – Christians that God has elected to salvation, respond to.

As a side note, certain people misappropriated Luther’s movement and used it to cause a great deal of trouble, including violent uprisings. (Among them were people who called themselves prophets and declared that they no longer needed scripture because they received direct revelation from God.) Naturally, this caused problems for Luther, as the Roman Catholics sought to blame him for the trouble. Prior to now, you had a lot of people attempting to reform Roman Catholicism from within, and their leader was regarded as Erasmus, whose primary goal above all else was to avoid dissension and conflict (a religious philosophy that owed more to Greek pagan philosophy than the teachings of Jesus Christ). Where Erasmus was originally sympathetic to Luther, he refused to commit to cast in his lot with Luther because it would have been the very sort of troublemaking that Erasmus’ religious beliefs held to be the root of all evils. In other words, Erasmus was the forerunner of modern Christians who demand that we should all strive for peace and unity no matter the differences doctrines and behavior! But when the uprisings that were blamed on Luther happened, it provoked Erasmus to take a stand against Luther, for Erasmus regarded Luther as having committed the biggest possible crime and injury against his belief system: disturbing the peace. So, Erasmus, leader of the humanist reformers of Roman Catholicism (in his day “humanism” meant “lovers of the humanities” i.e. arts, classic literature, etc.) decided that the best way to challenge Luther was to go after the doctrines of election and predestination, and in doing so wrote his own manifesto rejecting those doctrines and asserting his own belief in free will salvation. Luther’s response: Erasmus’ notion of free will had its origins in Greek pagan philosophy, the Aristotle, Plato, and Zeno that Erasmus so loved and was heavily influenced by, and not the Bible. (In defense of Erasmus, he acquired his love for Greek pagan philosophy because of his own dissatisfaction with Roman Catholic scholarship … he and the other humanists rejected many of the teachings of Rome and decided to go back to the Bible itself. Unfortunately, they decided to go back to the writings of many early western Christians also, and their writings were filled with the very influences of pagan philosophy that led to the development of Roman Catholicism to begin with. So Erasmus was willing to come part of the way out of Babylon, but not all of the way out, for he found certain parts of Babylon pleasing and useful to him. In addition to the earlier point on how God uses a Christian’s orthodoxy to transform the Christian himself but  a Christian’s orthopraxy to transform other people, the wages of being unwilling to fully abandon Babylon are also worth contemplating.)

Translated by Harold J. Grimm, taken from Luther’s 97 Theses: Disputation Against Scholastic Theology (Scholasticism) on the Contend Earnestly blog.

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

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

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The President Of Notre Dame Called Martin Luther Anti – Christian And Compared His Writings To The Vagina Monologues

Posted by Job on April 20, 2008

I used to be a big fan of Fighting Irish football. Well, NO MORE! Protestants, do not fall for their ecumenism lies. THIS is what Roman Catholics really think of you.

www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=27188

Posted in abomination, blasphemy, Christianity, ecumenism | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

The New York Times Praises Barack HUSSEIN Obama While Attacking Martin Luther!

Posted by Job on March 10, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/opinion/10kristol.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Posted in Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Christianity, New York Times | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Roman Catholic Church Moving To Reclaim Martin Luther For Roman Catholicism!

Posted by Job on March 6, 2008

Original post from Christian Research Network. My guess is that it means that the ecumenical movement between Roman Catholics and evangelical Christians is moving along swiftly and excellently. If Pope Benedict reverses the excommunication order of Martin Luther, then there will be nothing preventing granting Protestants some sort of official status. Of course, they will do this for the Orthodox Churches (Russian, Greek, etc.) first before they start wading into the hornet’s nest of Protestantism. However, the Protestant denominations that are already members of the apostate World Council of Churches – and other groups that have strong ecumenical ties with Roman Catholicism and have been moving away from the authority of scripture doctrines – will have no problem whatsoever.

Times On Line with a breathtaking example of fence-straddling and double-speak from the Pope, which comes close to rivaling emerging church guru Brian McLaren himself, the master of talking much and saying nothing:

Pope Benedict XVI is to rehabilitate Martin Luther, arguing that he did not intend to split Christianity but only to purge the Church of corrupt practices.

Pope Benedict will issue his findings on Luther (1483-1546) in September after discussing him at his annual seminar of 40 fellow theologians — known as the Ratzinger Schülerkreis — at Castelgandolfo, the papal summer residence. According to Vatican insiders the Pope will argue that Luther, who was excommunicated and condemned for heresy, was not a heretic…

Perhaps the Pope–usurper of the place of the Holy Spirit–ought to think on the following. Here’s Martin Luther as cited in Has the Roman Catholic Church Really Changed:

The negotiation about doctrinal agreement displeases me altogether, for this is utterly impossible unless the pope has his papacy abolished. Therefore avoid and flee those who seek the middle of the road. Think of me after I am dead and such middle-of-the-road men arise, for nothing good will come of it. There can be no compromise.

<!– –>

Now this is all part of the “unity” movement that virtually all of Christendom is speaking of these days, especially the neo – evangelicals like Rick Warren and the emergent church. Brother Silva at Apprising Ministries has several entries on that movement and Roman Catholicism, Southern Baptists, and MORMONS:

TRUE UNITY IN THE BODY OF CHRIST

ROMAN CATHOLIC MYSTICISM AND THE EMERGING CHURCH

WALTER MARTIN SPEAKS ON THE EMERGING CHURCH AND THE CULT OF NEW LIBERAL THEOLOGY WITHIN THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION

ROMAN CATHOLICISM: A DIFFERENT GOSPEL

MORMON CHURCH IS NOW CHRISTIAN

Between the Purpose Driven works – centered theologians, the emergents, the ecumenical movements, and the Oprah Winfrey New Age movement, the false prosperity doctrine that Pat Robertson and the Chinese government are working together to enslave that nation with, and the emergent Muslims (posts one and two about this at Slice Of Laodicea) we are veering towards one world religion at breakneck speed. All that is needed to push it along is a fantastic economic collapse of global proportions. Well, based on this post by Independent Conservative, looks like that is in the works too!

Posted in abomination, anti - Christ, apostasy, beast, China, Christianity, economic collapse, ecumenism, emergent church, endtimes, eschatology, evangelical christian, false prophet, heresy, Islam, man of sin, mark of the beast, Muslim, New Age, prophecy, prosperity doctrine, the beast, the false prophet, universalism, Word of Faith | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

More On John Hagee Jesus Did Not Come To Be The Messiah Apostasy Book

Posted by Job on November 14, 2007

I give much credit to Soli Deo Gloria, who was willing to endure the incredible agony of actually reading the new John Hagee book for the benefit of the rest of us. It turns out that the book is not as bad as previously thought: it is worse! Please read his post to find out how.

Finally Read the Entire Book…

Some excerpts: Soli Deo Gloria gives a link containing a more comprehensive analysis of the book at Bible Wheel.

Further, Soli Deo Gloria says “No where in this 207 page book did I see where Christ was lifted up; instead John Hagee lifts up in all 12 chapters a people and a land. Along with this idol worship, he points out time after time, in chapter after chapter, that we better wake up and realize the debt we owe, not to Christ, but to the Jewish people–he even has one chapter devoted entirely to this, chapter 8: Our Debt to the Jewish People“. This is a man ate up with zeal, not of/for God, but for a cause.”

Please recall: Hagee’s thesis is to “acquit” the Jewish people in two areas.

1) The notion that Jews living today are actually guilty of killing Jesus Christ. I agree with Hagee on this point. That is the problem. Virtually no fundamentalist or evangelical Christians hold those beliefs because they contradict scripture. Hagee’s preaching as if this is still a problem among Bible – adhering Christians helps further the lie that Christians who take the Bible seriously are inherently anti – Semitic along with their resulting beliefs.

2) Even worse, Hagee is trying to “acquit” the Jewish people of what the Bible actually does convict them of – rejecting Jesus Christ. Of course, the only way to do this is to claim that the Bible is wrong, the way that the Bible has been traditionally interpreted is wrong, and that being faithful to the Bible and its historic interpretations is anti – Semitism, which goes back to 1).

Realize that you can ask any non – Messianic Jew if he rejects the notion that Jesus Christ was the Messiah and he will answer affirmatively. Still, please know that most rank and file Jews could care less what Christians choose to believe, and what is more many of them see our reading their scriptures and praying to their God as a good thing. Rather, while all Jews (and by this I mean non – Messianic) believe that Jews were right to reject Jesus Christ then and have been correct in doing so since, it is only the religious, political, and intellectual leaders of their community that promote the notion that Christians should adopt their position by – among other means – reinterpreting the Bible (and where it cannot be reinterpreted then simply ignored as the likely product of self – hating apostate Jews and/or church revisionism and editing).

I repeat, most Jews, to the extent that they are even mindful of Christians, do not feel this way; most Jews are not trying to get us to abandon our beliefs. Many of them do wish that Christians would take the Old Testament more seriously and become better educated as to the Jewish roots of Christianity, which is my position as well. But alas, it is not the rank and file Jews that Hagee has chosen to seek out and affiliate himself with, but rather those that have the status and power that he wants for himself. Please recall that the very same Jesus Christ that Hagee is now denying did precisely the opposite in seeking out the low, meek, and humble.

That is the point of Hagee’s continual invoking of Martin Luther as an example of Christian anti – Semitism that led to the Holocaust. It is true that Luther wrote some exceptionally awful things about Jews that are unjustifiable in any context. But Hagee always leaves out a key contextualizing fact: when Luther split from the then institutionally and virulently anti – Semitic Roman Catholic Church, he was certain that he would convert large numbers of Jews, thinking that the main hindrance had been the hatefulness of the former. Luther had grand visions of Jew and Gentile joining together again to recreate the New Testament church, and when they rejected his entreaties he was baffled, crushed, and reacted as any MAN (as Luther WAS just a MAN) that had been raised his entire life in grotesque anti – Semitism could be expected to.

Hagee of course knows this. (Hagee also knows that the Jewish holy books, the Talmud and similar, contain things said about Gentiles – including Christians – that are also not particularly nice.) So why does he demand that the Bible and extrabiblical history be interpreted in a manner that justifies the Jewish rejection of Jesus Christ while refusing to provide a similar context for Luther’s anti – Semitic rantings? I am not defending the wrong of Luther. Instead, I say that both Luther’s anti – Semitism and the Jewish rejection of Jesus Christ were wrong. Hagee, on the other hand, uses the Luther wrong to justify the Jewish wrong then and now, which has the effect of making the witness of the Bible and the people who wrote it concerning the deity of Jesus Christ and accepting such being the only way to heaven wrong according to Hagee’s doctrine.

I wonder what effect – if any – this book has on the “Christians United For Israel” movement. I am thinking that the increasing pressure by the Bush administration to force Israel to create a Palestinian state (and the administration that will follow his that will exert more pressure still) may just force a lot of Christians to put aside whatever doctrinal issues that they have with John Hagee and continue to work with him, and in the process endorse and ultimately internalize more and more of his doctrine. Which, of course, is precisely what Hagee is counting on.

Posted in apostasy, Christianity, dual covenant theology, false doctrine, false preacher, false preachers, false prophet, false religion, false teachers, false teaching, Jesus Christ, John Hagee, Judaism, Moshiach, Y'shua Hamashiach, Y'shua Hamashiach Moshiach, Yeshua Hamashiach | Tagged: , , , , , | 55 Comments »

The Pentecostalism Movement Was Started By A Homosexual Klansman Mason!

Posted by Job on October 24, 2007

Please read this important article by IndependentConservative. Also take note of the comments following the article. Now of course, this is not a condemnation of all charismatics. That would be impossible because, well I happen to be one! Instead, it is incumbent upon us charismatics to practice our Book of Acts – based worship in spirit and in truth according to how the Bible tells us to: right belief and right practice. The early church set the example, and we have to follow it! Otherwise, we are not true charismatics, but rather synagogues of Satan. One interesting nugget: one of the links used by IndependentConservative asserts that Augustine of Hippo, Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther exhibited gifts of the spirit. Also, John Wesley experienced gifts of the Holy Spirit (and he also incidentally contended against FALSE charismatic activity, which apparently was going on even back then)! So we charismatics must remember: everything must be obedient to and confirmed by scripture. Otherwise, we will be found to be in violation of Revelation 2 and 3 … warnings given to the churches, not sinners!

How Fake Moves of the Holy Spirit Started in America

Posted in charismatic, Christianity, homosexuality, masonry, warning given to churches in Revelation 2 and 3 | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: