14 hours ago
(The article I'm quoting from was written by Christine Armario, a writer for the Associated Press, on 2-5-09.)
Beside what's most obviously horrifying about this tragic event, is the shock, dismay, and contempt of those on the "pro-choice" side of the argument have towards this particular abortion practitioner, without seriously considering where their dogma leads. Here's the first part of the story in the writer's own words.
"Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure."
"Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl."
"What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out."
"Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips."
""I don't care what your politics are, what your morals are, this should not be happening in our community," said Tom Pennekamp, a Miami attorney representing Williams in her lawsuit against Renelique (ren-uh-LEEK') and the clinic owners."
Now, I can completely understand why the "pro-lifers" are up in arms about this, I as a "pro-lifer" feel as they do, and I can understand the natural outrage that someone with a conscience feels regarding the disgusting nature of this story, but at what point will the "pro-choice" side of things start to see that this is exactly where their ideology is heading.
That is not to say that I believe all abortion advocates currently believe in this kind of thing, but I do believe that abortion advocates will be forced to accept this this type of practice in the future. Right now I believe it's possible that not all "pro-choicers" are advocates of infanticide, but I do believe that all infanticide advocates are "pro-choicers", and this is very troubling. Here's my question, what side of the previous statement has stronger intellectual gravitas; what side is more consistent?
And for anybody who thinks I'm going over the line by asking this, then please meet Peter Albert David Singer, professor at one of Americas most elite universities; Princeton. I will quote what this utilitarian bioethics philosopher has said regarding the legitimacy of killing another human being, he says:
"[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."
(Rethinking Life and Death 105)
So he is at least honest in saying a fetus (otherwise known as baby) is a living being, but, at least to him, it doesn't categorically tell him whether it's wrong or right to kill that living being. Elsewhere, in regards to infanticide he has stated:
"''I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being,'' Professor Singer told the rapt audience in Harold Helm Auditorium. ''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.''"
"Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia"
by: Paul Zeilbauer-New York Times, 10-13-99
Yes folks, this man is educating and influencing the elite's elite of future business leaders, "think-tank" philosophers, politicians, and medical practitioners, etc.; be very afraid!
So, here's what I mean in saying that the "pro-choice" ideology is headed down Professor Singer's road. The arguments for abortion are always rooted in utilitarian ethics, i.e. what is the greater good, etc., and this man is, perhaps, ahead of his time by just pushing the ideas of euthanasia and infanticide to their logically inevitable conclusions. Believe it or not, this man's a very clear and cogent thinker who longs to bring the truth of his sides position to light. He, as a person shouldn't be denegrated for speaking such things, although his ideas belong at the bottom of human reason's junk-heap, but his refreshing honesty is very rare among intellectual elites. All we can ask for is that people think consistently regarding their beliefs, and communicate them honestly without glossing over the unpleasant stuff.
However, Joanne Sterner, the Broward county president of NOW, remains inconsistent with her ideology when she says this about the incident:
""It really disturbed me...I know that there are clinics out there like this. And I hope that we can keep (women) from going to these types of clinics.""
I don't doubt that she was disturbed by the incident, but excuse me, the woman involved in this case was fine, at least medically speaking (maybe not mentally); now as for the child who suffocated in a plastic trash bag in the clinic's rubbish bin, that's another story. And once again, for anybody who believes I'm exagerating this account for effect, here is what Ms. Williams, the would be mother had to say about witnessing the event, she says:
"...Gonzalez [the clinic operator] knocked the baby off the recliner chair where she [Ms. Williams] had given birth, onto the floor. The baby's umbilical cord was not clamped, allowing her to bleed out. Gonzalez scooped the baby, placenta and afterbirth into a red plastic biohazard bag and threw it out."
I believe it's safe to say this baby suffered terribly in her final moments. Here's a little more information about how alive this child actually was.
"At 23 weeks, an otherwise healthy fetus would have a slim but legitimate chance of survival. Quadruplets born at 23 weeks last year at The Nebraska Medical Center survived.
An autopsy determined Williams' baby - she named her Shanice - had filled her lungs with air, meaning she had been born alive, according to the Department of Health. The cause of death was listed as extreme prematurity."
What a tragedy! Let's pray this brutal practice will one day be criminalized as it should, and that the Lord show "pro-choice" advocates the error of their ways so that they repent of this sin.
...This excellent article by Pr. Stuart Wood called:
Taking the Mask off Calvinism
The Danger of Human Reason
by: Pr. Stuart Wood
(This article is republished with the author's consent)
Dear brethren of the ELCR, we live in a dangerous time. Today, more than ever before, Satan is trying to wipe true Christianity off the face of the map. We know that he cannot ultimately accomplish that, but we also know that he will not cease his efforts until the Lord comes. Jesus said, “No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.” (Mark 3:27). This binding of the strong man took place at the cross of Calvary. There our Lord rendered Satan powerless (Heb. 2:14). For the last two thousand years, He has been plundering his house, that is, rescuing poor lost souls who were formerly under his power. He has done this through the proclamation of the Gospel, how that “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3). When a person hears this Word and receives it in true faith, he “hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24). He is “delivered from the power of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son” (Col. 1:13). But the Scriptures also tell us that this blessed time will come to an end. Revelation 20 speaks of a “little season” shortly before the Lord’s return when Satan will be loosed of his bonds and will make one last all-out assault on the Christian church. Since he is loosed, his house will no longer be plundered nor his goods spoiled. Rather, he will once again “keep his goods in peace”, that is, keep the lost in their deluded lost estate. From this we see that Satan will silence the Gospel during this “little season”.
Revelation 20 also tells us how he will silence the Gospel. He will do this by assembling together a vast horde of spiritual enemies from the four corners of the world to oppose and overwhelm “the camp of the saints”, “the beloved city”, that is, the true invisible church of Christ. The Scriptures call this horde “Gog” and “Magog”. According to St. Augustine, the word “Gog” means “a roof” and “Magog” means “from a roof”, and so the two terms have reference to “a house”. God is telling us that in the last days Satan will assemble his whole unbelieving house against the true Christian church. In every sphere of earthly power true Christianity will be marginalized, maligned, hated, and persecuted. Whether in the educational sphere, the scientific sphere, the vocational sphere, the economic sphere, the social sphere, the media sphere, the political sphere, the religious sphere, or any other earthly sphere of power, Satan will rise up as a multi-headed beast with a crown on every head. He will so vilify and malign the church, so thoroughly delude and prejudice the minds of the unbelieving, that few will dare or think to take her message seriously. The anti-Christian spirit will rule all earthly powers and will dominate and control the entire world.
Brethren, do we not see this anti-Christian spirit already in place? No matter where you turn today, the Word of God and those who truly stand with it are ridiculed and silenced. The world will tolerate anything and everything except the truth of God’s Word. And since God’s Word contains both His law and Gospel, those who rightly divide the Word are the special objects of this opposition and hatred. The world does not want to hear that they are lost sinners and it does not want to hear that Jesus Christ is the one and only Saviour from sin and death. The world seeks to kill the “two witnesses”, the law and the Gospel, who have tormented them for so long. Ultimately, due to Satan’s influence, it is the Gospel that they are most against, because Satan knows that the Gospel is the only truth by which a human soul may be saved. Satan hates souls because he hates God, the Creator and Lover of souls. He will gladly promote any religion, including all false representations of Christianity, if it is devoid of the Gospel because that does him no harm. All, except the true invisible church, will enjoy his nefarious smile and the earthly honors and treasures that go with it so long as they reject the Gospel.
One such religion that rejects and destroys the Gospel is Calvinism. Throughout this paper, I am speaking of that Calvinism that denies the universal atonement of Christ. For this reason Satan has raised it up and established it in its many forms. Its errors are subtle, reflecting the deep guile and great might of our old evil foe. The Scriptures describe the serpent as “more subtil than any beast of the field” (Gen. 3:1). The deadly danger of Calvinism is that it looks so much like true Christianity. It is a counterfeit that can easily pass as public tender. In fact, I would never have known or even have suspected the poisonous nature of this devilish lie if not for the writings of Martin Luther which taught me faith and delivered me from its terrible snare. You see, Calvinism is really a false religion, despite its appearance as an advocate for Biblical truth. It is a religion led of depraved human reason and not that true religion which belongs to the Word of God and child-like faith....Click here to continue reading this article...
Today we look at Luther's second thesis of the Heidelberg Disputation, it states:
Thesis 2:
"Much less can human works which are done over and over again with the aid of natural precepts, so to speak, lead to that end."
What does this mean? Well, in reference to the first thesis, which states: "The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him.", we find that when man tries to perform perfect righteousness according to the Law of God, he only awakens an evil desire within himself, and is thus incapable of conforming to the demands of the Law. So, what this thesis is in reference to is the works of men apart from the Law.
Thesis 2:
"Much less can human works which are done over and over again with the aid of natural precepts, so to speak, lead to that end."
What does this mean? Well, in reference to the first thesis, which states: "The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him.", we find that when man tries to perform perfect righteousness according to the Law of God, he only awakens an evil desire within himself, and is thus incapable of conforming to the demands of the Law. So, what this thesis is in reference to is the works of men apart from the Law.
In Romans 2:14,15; it states:
"...for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them..."
Therefore, the effect on man is essentially the same in man-made laws as it is in the Law of God, for these man-made works did not appear from nothing, there is a place they derive themselves, namely, the Law written on their heart. And, hearkening back to the first thesis, if a man can no more do the Law of God without help from his Lord because of the awakening evil desire within him made manifest by the Law, how can he possibly look within himself for any hope of doing the same by man-made works? This is the exact sentiment that Luther states in his proof of this thesis:
"Since the law of God, which is holy and unstained, true, just, etc. is given man by God as an aid beyond his natural powers to enlighten him and move him to do the good, and nevertheless the opposite takes place, namely, that he becomes more wicked, how can he, left to his own power and without such aid, be induced to do good? If a person does not do good with help from without, he will do even less by his own strength. Therefore the Apostle, in Rom. 3[:10-12], calls all persons corrupt and impotent who neither understand nor seek God, for all, he says, have gone astray."
So, what we find after the first two theses is that man, whether he attempts to perform works within the Law, or without, that his actions are nevertheless still under the wrath of God. Furthermore, since these man-made works find their ground in the Law written on our hearts, the attempt of performing them with hopeful accordance in righteousness will still awaken an evil desire apart from the Law anyway. If we were to live in righteousness, the only pure way to do it would be to live by the Law of God, if we are incapable of doing that by nature, how can we possibly take comfort in any good works we do apart from the Law?
If we put our trust and faith in ourselves and what we are capable of, then we are building upon a foundation of sand. Our castle will fall, and our fort will be overtaken. The works we perform are never good enough for God, and even though we may believe they are, we are merely appreciating our works as a blind person would appreciate the Sunset, in short, it can't be done. If we could actually see what our works looked like from God's perspective, we would see them as the prophet describes them in Isa. 64:6:
"But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags..."
So, let's set aside our "filthy rags", and put on Christ's robe of righteousness. It is in him that we shine radiantly before the eyes of our Lord, and not in the paltry attire we're accustomed to. If you quietly take comfort when examining yourself in the things of your heart, your temperament, your way of life, then you are not in the faith, for you are not resting your conscience on the true source of our sinlessness which is none other than our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If you are this person, then repent, for God longs to forgive us our iniquities, and then follow Christ, the sole author and perfecter of our faith.
Alright get a load of this:
"After a two-year study, the congregation decided a satellite ministry might work. They also thought about different ways in which to present the gospel and came up with an approach that Hunter refers to as “casual about church; serious about God.”
“We studied our culture: its movement away from church and its movement toward community and the desire to get together at a café or a Starbucks,” says Hunter. “Our goal was to recreate that atmosphere and bring the gospel to it.”
Guess what church body this is? Is it the PC-USA, the SBC, the LCMS, the ElCA, or some Crypto-Baptist, non-denominational, community mega-church?! No, it is none other than the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod - sans the Lutheran bit of course. Yes, they've decided to feed at the trough of "church-growth", and, if they continue, they'll suffer the same fate as many megachurches before them, the fate of mass exodus.
Beside the repulsive "results-oriented" dogma which undergirds the "church growth" movement, (i.e. if the numbers of your congregation do not increase, then your doing something wrong, etc.) what disturbs me is how blindly behind the times these people are. Seriously, this is mid-90's style church-growth here, get with it!
It all the more proves Francis Schaeffer's philosophy of culture influencing the church true. First, usually 50 years or more before the movement connects with the masses, a new idea, a new social, or political, or business science, what have you, is given birth in the bowels of a university. It'll then begin to subtly influence the bohemian crowd, such as: artists, poets, novelists, musicians, and also the powers that be in science, business, etc., etc. Next, as the bohemian crowd, and the power elite soften the blow of this radical paradigm shift in thought and social interaction, thus, in the process making it "hip", the mass media begins to also subtly introduce it in drips and drabs until it becomes regular group-think, or common knowledge. That process can take years. Then, as this now old idea is communally accepted, the parishioners, and pastors, for that matter, introduce it as a new and bold vision of the future for the propagation of the Gospel message that magically works great results. However, by this time in the cycle, the world has already given birth, consumed, and defecated at least three great paradigm shifts since the first one's examination was even given a chance to play out in the church-growth movement.
The result is a culture that scoffs the church when it takes stumbling footsteps in trying to be relevant and hip to a naturally hostile society. We all have known the parent of a teenager who tries, usually feebly, to appear relevant to their kid and their kid's friends. Yet, when the parent is out the room, the embarrassed kid and the friends as well chide the parents actions for how transparent and obvious they are. The parent merely wants first hand insight into their child's lives, but instead of being honest and direct, they attempt to stealthily infiltrate their social circle, and are usually too blind to see that their feeble actions are further alienating their child. So it is with the church. When the church wears a mask of "sunshine and light" and hides the unpopular aspects of Christianity regarding sin, damnation, and man's complete inability to procure salvation for himself outside of Christ, the church undermines it's central message; the Gospel. No one can receive this precious gift of God without first seeing how spiritually impoverished they actually are without it. So here you have a maxim appearing, the more you attempt to make the Gospel relevant to a hostile world, the more hostile the treatment of the Gospel becomes by it's own handlers.
Let's face it, everyone of us, the Gospel is not a popular message, and Christ promised us as much. When St. Paul traveled to a new place, he went to the synagogue first and proclaimed the salvation Jews have in Christ, and then unto the Gentile. In many towns he was scoffed and treated as a fool, even a criminal at times, however, even in the midst of ostracization from a community, people from that very community would approach him, many times in secret, yearning to know more about this Jesus and his saving work done upon a cross to bring about the resurrection of the dead. Whereever he went he either reaped a little harvest, or a great one, but he knew that the Gospel was the power of God unto salvation. It had nothing to do with the impression he gave to the crowd, or how relevant his message was, for he knew that all men are perishing until Christ's return, and, consequently the messages relevance will endure as well until the end of time.
And when the church covers over the true Gospel with "Gospel-lite", it only deceives all the people they brought in the door by that message. For when these people, at least the consistent and honest ones, begin to explore their Bibles, as they should, they'll find all kinds of unflattering things said about them that their pastor and fellow parishioners have intentionally kept from them. It's a "bait-and-switch" scam. Bring'em in the door with something nice and shiny, and try to sell'em something else somewhere down the line, and hopefully they'll bite. Yet, how many are now leaving, and the solution to this problem, at least according to Bill Hybels, is to "appear" more formal, and more traditional. Notice it is in appearance only, but not in substance.
We don't have to re-invent the wheel here folks. Lutherans do not need to lose their identity in order to gain more parishioners. If we preach the Gospel and for now, only a few are reached, then God be praised, and if we preach the Gospel and for now many are reached, then, and in equal measure, God be praised. We mustn't attempt to "help" God with the Gospel. We preach the Word; He does the rest, that's it, plain and simple!
And now, I'll leave you with one thing, and it is well worth the read. It's called "The Celestial Railroad" by Nathaniel Hawthorne: quite apropos to these devil's of modernity that we speak of.
The Celestial Railroad
A Brief Study: What Does This Mean?
by: Stephen C. Lomax
Exodus 4:24-26 ~ circumcision of the son
Even after many readings, some Bible verses and passages are obscure and seem to stand isolated from the larger narrative, like an unexpected intruder. One such text is from the Old Testament -- Exodus 4:24-26.
(v.24) And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
(v.25) Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
(v.26) So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.
Abrupt and unsettling, it is hard to deny that this passage appears to lie unconnected to everything surrounding it. As Christians, we are certain it has something to teach us. As Lutherans, we believe that, like the rest of Scripture, it in some way points to the Messiah, the “author and finisher of our faith” (Heb. 12:2). Below, we will be examining commentary that illumines and which is in accord with the entire Scriptures...Click here to continue the rest...
As is explained in the conversation between Issues Etc., host Todd Wilken and his guest, Dr. Matt Phillips of Concordia University Nebraska, one can't really understand Roman Catholic theology without first understanding the philosophy of Aristotle.
Likewise, and in turn, one can't truly understand Luther and his diametric opposition to Medieval Scholasticism unless he first understands Luther's educational environment and its unspoken opposition to "scripture alone".
This audio is a good little introduction to Medieval Scholasticism, and Luther's reaction to the educational zeitgeist of the later 15th century, with "ad fontes", "or as translated "back to the sources". Up until shortly before Luther's time great strides had been made by many scholars of the same vein, in dissecting Medieval philosophy from ancient church theology. This "back to the sources" attitude regarding the study of God helped give birth to the reformation maxim "Sola Scriptura" which is so essential to Lutheranism and the legacy Luther's given us.
Listen and enjoy!
Also, thank God for the resource that is Issues Etc.; it's truly a blessing! If you've never listened to the program before, then please visit the site and lend your ear, there really is something for everyone, and the Gospel for everyone too!
Likewise, and in turn, one can't truly understand Luther and his diametric opposition to Medieval Scholasticism unless he first understands Luther's educational environment and its unspoken opposition to "scripture alone".
This audio is a good little introduction to Medieval Scholasticism, and Luther's reaction to the educational zeitgeist of the later 15th century, with "ad fontes", "or as translated "back to the sources". Up until shortly before Luther's time great strides had been made by many scholars of the same vein, in dissecting Medieval philosophy from ancient church theology. This "back to the sources" attitude regarding the study of God helped give birth to the reformation maxim "Sola Scriptura" which is so essential to Lutheranism and the legacy Luther's given us.
Listen and enjoy!
Also, thank God for the resource that is Issues Etc.; it's truly a blessing! If you've never listened to the program before, then please visit the site and lend your ear, there really is something for everyone, and the Gospel for everyone too!
Today we examine Luther's first thesis of the Heidelberg Disputation:
Thesis 1:
"The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him."
The Law of God is good. It tells us how our heart should be towards our neighbor and towards God Himself. However, when we examine our hearts by God's Law we not only see it accusing us of our sins, but we also see that it awakens an evil desire within us. Therefore, the more we practice the Law, and the more we attempt perfection in the light of Gods law, the more our flesh in evilness struggles against our will to do good.
We find ourselves in the same predicament as the wretched man in Romans 7:7-24:
"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good."
"Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?"
Luther offers this following passage as the proof of his thesis, it states:
"This is made clear by the Apostle in his letter to the Romans (3[:21]): "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law." St. Augustine interprets this in his book, The Spirit and the Letter (De Spiritu et Littera): "Without the law, that is, without its support." In Rom. 5[:20] the Apostle states, "Law intervened, to increase the trespass," and in Rom. 7[:9] he adds, "But when the commandment came, sin revived." For this reason he calls the law a law of death and a law of sin in Rom. 8[:2]. Indeed, in 2 Cor. 3[:6] he says, "the written code kills," which St. Augustine throughout his book, The Spirit and the Letter, understands as applying to every law, even the holiest law of God."
Man's reason looks at God and His demands and believes that God wouldn't give him something he wasn't able to perform. And so, he concludes that he must do these things primarily to be in God's good graces, yet, if he is honest with himself, he will find that the closer he comes to God's Law, the further he gets from actually fulfilling it. The more he practices righteousness, the more he actually practices wickedness. This frustrates his reason and he questions, "what must I do to be saved?"
It is here where God is finally ready to meet him, for in the end, the wretched man finally cries out, "who will deliver me from this body of death?" This is exactly were God wants everyone of us, for the wretched man in the very next sentence finally sees the despair of his own works and clings to the One who has fulfilled the Law in his place. He states in verse 25, "I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord", for it is by Him and Him alone that we are righteous in the eyes of our God. It is in him and him alone that we have the life everlasting.
Are you tired of the weight of God's Law on your shoulders? Does it seem that no matter how hard you try to keep it, that you were always worse off then when you started? If you are tired, then repent, for God longs to forgive us our iniquities! Let Christ take the weight of your sin from off of you, and put on his robe of righteousness, for "his yoke is easy, and his burden is light", so "come to Him, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and He will give you rest."
Thesis 1:
"The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him."
The Law of God is good. It tells us how our heart should be towards our neighbor and towards God Himself. However, when we examine our hearts by God's Law we not only see it accusing us of our sins, but we also see that it awakens an evil desire within us. Therefore, the more we practice the Law, and the more we attempt perfection in the light of Gods law, the more our flesh in evilness struggles against our will to do good.
We find ourselves in the same predicament as the wretched man in Romans 7:7-24:
"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good."
"Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?"
Luther offers this following passage as the proof of his thesis, it states:
"This is made clear by the Apostle in his letter to the Romans (3[:21]): "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law." St. Augustine interprets this in his book, The Spirit and the Letter (De Spiritu et Littera): "Without the law, that is, without its support." In Rom. 5[:20] the Apostle states, "Law intervened, to increase the trespass," and in Rom. 7[:9] he adds, "But when the commandment came, sin revived." For this reason he calls the law a law of death and a law of sin in Rom. 8[:2]. Indeed, in 2 Cor. 3[:6] he says, "the written code kills," which St. Augustine throughout his book, The Spirit and the Letter, understands as applying to every law, even the holiest law of God."
Man's reason looks at God and His demands and believes that God wouldn't give him something he wasn't able to perform. And so, he concludes that he must do these things primarily to be in God's good graces, yet, if he is honest with himself, he will find that the closer he comes to God's Law, the further he gets from actually fulfilling it. The more he practices righteousness, the more he actually practices wickedness. This frustrates his reason and he questions, "what must I do to be saved?"
It is here where God is finally ready to meet him, for in the end, the wretched man finally cries out, "who will deliver me from this body of death?" This is exactly were God wants everyone of us, for the wretched man in the very next sentence finally sees the despair of his own works and clings to the One who has fulfilled the Law in his place. He states in verse 25, "I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord", for it is by Him and Him alone that we are righteous in the eyes of our God. It is in him and him alone that we have the life everlasting.
Are you tired of the weight of God's Law on your shoulders? Does it seem that no matter how hard you try to keep it, that you were always worse off then when you started? If you are tired, then repent, for God longs to forgive us our iniquities! Let Christ take the weight of your sin from off of you, and put on his robe of righteousness, for "his yoke is easy, and his burden is light", so "come to Him, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and He will give you rest."
Okay, in reference to the Heidelberg Disputation, if there's a wrong way to do theology, then what is the right way? Well, to answer that question one would have to refer back to the theologian of glory as being just but one path a theologian can take, the incorrect path mind you. Yet, before we can supply any answer about the right path some more things must first be explored a little more deeply, and there is no better example than in examining the life of the one whom God chose to bring about the Reformation: Dr. Martin Luther.
We must start with the educational climate of Luther's day. God's Word, as it is plainly written is in fact contrary in nature to human reason. One can easily find it filled with paradox and "bad" reasoning, at least by the Aristotelian/Thomistic Scholasticism of Luther's day (hang in there with me folks, my intent isn't to disparage the Bible, I promise!). Yet, of course, the sophists of Medieval and early Renaissance Christianity made every attempt to avoid the paradoxes of scripture, for in their thinking they presupposed that our minds and God's mind must be governed by the same laws. Therefore, our logic, as of necessity, must really be God's logic and was to a certain extent pure. Such is the nature of Aristotelian philosophy, one must always reason upwards-from the ground up-so to say. If our minds are governed by logic, then the cause of all minds, the Creator's mind, must govern affairs in the same manner, and, logically expects us to do the same as well. So, it stands to reason that their can be NO paradoxes or il-logic in the Bible whatsoever, at least by any scholastic standards.
Luther had a problem with this. He was educated in the scholastic tradition as well, and he was equally versed in Aristotle's Organon. When he applied the classical rules of logic to scripture he was perplexed, for some scriptures spoke to the fact that all men are saved by Christ's work on the cross, and yet other scriptures spoke to the fact that all men were dead in their trespasses in sin. Regarding the Bible and it's contrary nature, this was only the tip of the iceberg as far Luther was concerned. However, this very issue is what troubled the conscience of Luther the most, for the Bible, at least according to his reason, offered no assurance of salvation due to these inherent paradoxes. If he was to cling purely to his reason, then he knew he was lost. With his reason God's Word was and remained a closed book to him. At times, as he confessed, he hated God for the psychological terror regarding the salvation/damnation dilemma that God's paradoxical Word caused him. These episodes of despair were legendary. Unfortunately for him at that time, God's word, the very words of life, were nothing but words of despair.
Also, prior to Luther becoming a monk of the Augustinian Order he was trained in the university as a lawyer. He was well aware that if God was perfect, just, and omniscient, then no human action is hidden or immune from His righteous judgment. Therefore, we all stand naked before the eyes of our Lord. And so, Luther took Socrates maxim "know thyself" to a new degree by applying God's perfect Law to his inward motivations. What he found was that no matter how hard he tried to do a good work according to the Law, the work was always tainted by some selfish and evil motivation. Here's the reason, the Law is only truly performed when it is done with a pure heart moved by perfect love for God and neighbor. If the motivation to do the Law comes from a desire to please God, then the individual acting has already failed. For, if a heart is pure and sinless it does not worry whether God will be pleased or not, it will do what is natural to it, which is to love God and his neighbor perfectly. If there is a want of conformity to, or a desire for performing the Law for God's pleasure or appeasement, then, by necessity, it presupposes an impurity in ones heart, for if a heart were pure it would not desire such things, it would, by nature do them.
Here was another charge for Luther to bring against God, adding just that much more to his hatred of Him; why would a good God command him to do something that he was completely incapable of doing? Was it a joke? Was God sadistic? Fortunately, for us all and for Luther, he would eventually get his answer. Yet, before we get to that, we must address mens actions as Luther understood them after his realization of the biblical doctrine regarding total human depravity.
What he came to find, as far as the works of men were concerned, that when man acts to please or appease God he does not and cannot do it in the spirit of the Law. Mankind deep down knows this, yet, out of his guilty conscience he waters down God's Law to mere outward performances, and does not desire for his heart to be pure. All this he does so as to ease his conscience, which is merely the Law written on his heart accusing him. In so doing, he only artificially quenches his thirst for righteousness. However, God still requires perfect righteousness, and in the act of diminishing the Law he destroys his conscience, which depends on the clarity and absolute up-right nature of the Law, and ultimately makes shipwreck of his faith in doing so. In his depravity and defiance he turns to make an idol unto himself fashioned in the ways of the world. If he can obey this worldly wisdom and fool his brethren and subsequently himself into thinking he is righteous by his pious works, then so shall he be in the eyes of the world. From there he extrapolates that if the world thinks a work to be righteous, then God must think it is too, that he must use the same grading curve as us, so to say. However, what he fails to realize is that he has fully turned from God and acts as the heathen does, for there is no difference between the mentalities of both at this point.
Now, he may fashion the idol into intellectual abilities, worldly understandings of justice, physical stamina, etc., etc., yet ultimately it doesn't matter what it is, for in his mind he believes if he can maintain these man-oriented works then he is righteous in the eyes of his lord. However, his lord is not the Lord of lords; it is, in comparison, but a pale phantom of his own design.
And here was where Luther found himself, in a cloister of men performing man-made works of penance not prescribed by the Law in any fashion, realizing that he was but a pharisee, which were the very people Christ ridiculed and railed against in his own lifetime. He, yet once again, found himself on the wrong side of God.
However, God early on gave Luther a blessing in his father confessor Johann von Staupitz, who pointed Luther, during his periods of spiritual despair, towards the scriptures message of God not only being wrathful, but also of the message to know and trust God in his mercy. The Bible spoke both of these truths, but Luther's reason always gravitated to the God in his righteousness. God's mercy as found in Christ was foreign to him. His interpretation of God's Son in his holiness, at the time, was one of unapproachability. Luther could only see Christ as stated in the first half of Psalms 2:12 "Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little.", but he didn't very easily see the second part, "Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him." (NKJV)
Nevertheless Luther was a diligent disciple as well as an ardent student of Scripture. He was particularly taken with the Epistles of Paul, for he longed to understand them as Augustine had. Then one day there came a great awakening in him regarding scripture, here is Luther describing it in his own words:
I had indeed been captivated with an extraordinary ardor for understanding Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. But up till then it was not the cold blood around the heart, but a single word in Chapter 1 [verse 17], “in it [the gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed,” that had stood in my way. For I hated that word “righteousness of God,” which, according to the use and custom of all the teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically regarding the formal or active righteousness, as they called it, with which God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner. Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, “As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue [Ten Commandments], without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!” Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted. At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me.
We must start with the educational climate of Luther's day. God's Word, as it is plainly written is in fact contrary in nature to human reason. One can easily find it filled with paradox and "bad" reasoning, at least by the Aristotelian/Thomistic Scholasticism of Luther's day (hang in there with me folks, my intent isn't to disparage the Bible, I promise!). Yet, of course, the sophists of Medieval and early Renaissance Christianity made every attempt to avoid the paradoxes of scripture, for in their thinking they presupposed that our minds and God's mind must be governed by the same laws. Therefore, our logic, as of necessity, must really be God's logic and was to a certain extent pure. Such is the nature of Aristotelian philosophy, one must always reason upwards-from the ground up-so to say. If our minds are governed by logic, then the cause of all minds, the Creator's mind, must govern affairs in the same manner, and, logically expects us to do the same as well. So, it stands to reason that their can be NO paradoxes or il-logic in the Bible whatsoever, at least by any scholastic standards.
Luther had a problem with this. He was educated in the scholastic tradition as well, and he was equally versed in Aristotle's Organon. When he applied the classical rules of logic to scripture he was perplexed, for some scriptures spoke to the fact that all men are saved by Christ's work on the cross, and yet other scriptures spoke to the fact that all men were dead in their trespasses in sin. Regarding the Bible and it's contrary nature, this was only the tip of the iceberg as far Luther was concerned. However, this very issue is what troubled the conscience of Luther the most, for the Bible, at least according to his reason, offered no assurance of salvation due to these inherent paradoxes. If he was to cling purely to his reason, then he knew he was lost. With his reason God's Word was and remained a closed book to him. At times, as he confessed, he hated God for the psychological terror regarding the salvation/damnation dilemma that God's paradoxical Word caused him. These episodes of despair were legendary. Unfortunately for him at that time, God's word, the very words of life, were nothing but words of despair.
Also, prior to Luther becoming a monk of the Augustinian Order he was trained in the university as a lawyer. He was well aware that if God was perfect, just, and omniscient, then no human action is hidden or immune from His righteous judgment. Therefore, we all stand naked before the eyes of our Lord. And so, Luther took Socrates maxim "know thyself" to a new degree by applying God's perfect Law to his inward motivations. What he found was that no matter how hard he tried to do a good work according to the Law, the work was always tainted by some selfish and evil motivation. Here's the reason, the Law is only truly performed when it is done with a pure heart moved by perfect love for God and neighbor. If the motivation to do the Law comes from a desire to please God, then the individual acting has already failed. For, if a heart is pure and sinless it does not worry whether God will be pleased or not, it will do what is natural to it, which is to love God and his neighbor perfectly. If there is a want of conformity to, or a desire for performing the Law for God's pleasure or appeasement, then, by necessity, it presupposes an impurity in ones heart, for if a heart were pure it would not desire such things, it would, by nature do them.
Here was another charge for Luther to bring against God, adding just that much more to his hatred of Him; why would a good God command him to do something that he was completely incapable of doing? Was it a joke? Was God sadistic? Fortunately, for us all and for Luther, he would eventually get his answer. Yet, before we get to that, we must address mens actions as Luther understood them after his realization of the biblical doctrine regarding total human depravity.
What he came to find, as far as the works of men were concerned, that when man acts to please or appease God he does not and cannot do it in the spirit of the Law. Mankind deep down knows this, yet, out of his guilty conscience he waters down God's Law to mere outward performances, and does not desire for his heart to be pure. All this he does so as to ease his conscience, which is merely the Law written on his heart accusing him. In so doing, he only artificially quenches his thirst for righteousness. However, God still requires perfect righteousness, and in the act of diminishing the Law he destroys his conscience, which depends on the clarity and absolute up-right nature of the Law, and ultimately makes shipwreck of his faith in doing so. In his depravity and defiance he turns to make an idol unto himself fashioned in the ways of the world. If he can obey this worldly wisdom and fool his brethren and subsequently himself into thinking he is righteous by his pious works, then so shall he be in the eyes of the world. From there he extrapolates that if the world thinks a work to be righteous, then God must think it is too, that he must use the same grading curve as us, so to say. However, what he fails to realize is that he has fully turned from God and acts as the heathen does, for there is no difference between the mentalities of both at this point.
Now, he may fashion the idol into intellectual abilities, worldly understandings of justice, physical stamina, etc., etc., yet ultimately it doesn't matter what it is, for in his mind he believes if he can maintain these man-oriented works then he is righteous in the eyes of his lord. However, his lord is not the Lord of lords; it is, in comparison, but a pale phantom of his own design.
And here was where Luther found himself, in a cloister of men performing man-made works of penance not prescribed by the Law in any fashion, realizing that he was but a pharisee, which were the very people Christ ridiculed and railed against in his own lifetime. He, yet once again, found himself on the wrong side of God.
However, God early on gave Luther a blessing in his father confessor Johann von Staupitz, who pointed Luther, during his periods of spiritual despair, towards the scriptures message of God not only being wrathful, but also of the message to know and trust God in his mercy. The Bible spoke both of these truths, but Luther's reason always gravitated to the God in his righteousness. God's mercy as found in Christ was foreign to him. His interpretation of God's Son in his holiness, at the time, was one of unapproachability. Luther could only see Christ as stated in the first half of Psalms 2:12 "Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little.", but he didn't very easily see the second part, "Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him." (NKJV)
Nevertheless Luther was a diligent disciple as well as an ardent student of Scripture. He was particularly taken with the Epistles of Paul, for he longed to understand them as Augustine had. Then one day there came a great awakening in him regarding scripture, here is Luther describing it in his own words:
I had indeed been captivated with an extraordinary ardor for understanding Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. But up till then it was not the cold blood around the heart, but a single word in Chapter 1 [verse 17], “in it [the gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed,” that had stood in my way. For I hated that word “righteousness of God,” which, according to the use and custom of all the teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically regarding the formal or active righteousness, as they called it, with which God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner. Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, “As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue [Ten Commandments], without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!” Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted. At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me.
Luther’s preface to the complete edition of his Latin writings, Luther’s Works, Vol. 34 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1960), pp. 336-37.
In his searching, in his despair, in his hatred of God, Luther, unbeknownst to himself was being prepared and guided by God to actually receive the true Gospel for himself and to also deliver it unto the rest of the world. The new "face" of scripture he saw was one of complete and total mercy given us by God's grace through faith in Christ alone. What he initially understood of God was nothing but his righteous Law, yet, with this change of heart and mind he was able to comprehend the mercy given us in the beautiful work of Christ on His cross. Luther once knew God in his majesty, but now he knew Him as the Son of Man taking all the world's sufferings upon Himself for our sake. He found that the "righteousness of God", namely Christ's righteousness was ours, and our sin was His. Luther no longer had to fear God, for Christ on the Cross was the lightning rod attracting God's wrath against us, and Christ carrying the wrath with Him forever into the grave.
Luther's reason could only see God in his righteousness, but God frustrated and overcame his intellect to show him the key to interpreting scripture. He was to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified, and with this key, God's Word was now for him an open book. This is the way for the theologian of the cross, this is the way unto salvation.
Are you in despair under the impossible demands of God's taskmaster, the Law? Does your reason deceive you about the unshakable promise of God's Word regarding the salvation given us in Christ? If it does then repent, for God longs to forgive us our iniquities, and let us then confess true this opening line of the introduction to the Heidelberg Disputation when it says:
"Distrusting completely our own wisdom, according to that counsel of the Holy Spirit, "Do not rely on your own insight" [Prov. 3:5]..."
and let us walk in faith, trusting in nothing but our Lord and His Word.
Luther's reason could only see God in his righteousness, but God frustrated and overcame his intellect to show him the key to interpreting scripture. He was to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified, and with this key, God's Word was now for him an open book. This is the way for the theologian of the cross, this is the way unto salvation.
Are you in despair under the impossible demands of God's taskmaster, the Law? Does your reason deceive you about the unshakable promise of God's Word regarding the salvation given us in Christ? If it does then repent, for God longs to forgive us our iniquities, and let us then confess true this opening line of the introduction to the Heidelberg Disputation when it says:
"Distrusting completely our own wisdom, according to that counsel of the Holy Spirit, "Do not rely on your own insight" [Prov. 3:5]..."
and let us walk in faith, trusting in nothing but our Lord and His Word.
In surveying Luther's theses of the Heidelberg Disputation, three things come to mind: counter-intuition, reason over turned, and mental stumbling blocks. When one reads them, as was the intent of its author, one can't help but feel frustrated by the seeming "il-logic" behind them. However, when one accepts these theses true, as any Christian should (considering how closely they're aligned with the one true Gospel) one will have his reason in its "right" place. Let me illustrate.Now, imagine, if you will, a moon-less midnight, standing at one end of a grand and level playing field. Now, just run as quickly as possible to the other side without falling; if you fall, no worries, just start again. The task is relatively simple. The field is fairly flat, plenty of room in either direction to go slightly off course if need be, just stand up straight, keep balance, and run to the other side. No problems, right?
Wrong! You didn't think it was going to be that easy, did you? Well, what you don't know and can't see for that matter is that for every few feet of field, a trench is dug in such a way so as to trick those who look at the field from one of its ends into thinking it even and steady terrain ahead. Surprise! Now run! But remember, don't fall, lest you wish to start again!
That's the kind of experience one has when reading through the theses of the Heidelberg Disputation. We use reason like our body, we expect, with all things being equal, that we, like with the football field, should be able to negotiate simple propositions before us. However, what may look simple, unbeknownst to us, is really laden with ankle twisting snares, things that frustrate and hinder our "progress". What's even more deceiving, is to come to an understanding, a peace with the fact that those ankle twisting snares are there for our own good. Without them, we wouldn't be humbled, we wouldn't fall to our knees and cry to the Lord, "have mercy on me, a sinner", we wouldn't see our fallen nature as God wants us to see it.
This is Luther's purpose. In the Heidelberg Disputation he displays two paths for a theologian. The first is the theologian of glory (hereafter referred to as TOG). He is a proud creature. Inclined towards works righteousness, TOG believes that he's capable of earning God's favor by his good deeds. Also, as one who relies primarily on his own understanding of things, he judges God's favor with him by his five senses. If things are going well, God must love him, however, if things are going bad, then God is judging him for not doing things right.
What truly confounds the reason of TOG is when he does all the things right that he's supposed to (in TOG eyes, of course), yet, God clearly shows his disfavor as displayed by TOG's poor circumstances. It causes him frustration and boldly he cries out to his maker, "why do the righteous suffer while the wicked prosper?" When he receives no answer, he assumes God must be testing him, and if he survives the test to the end, then he, and God of course, are proud of a job well done.
However, there is something that equally confounds TOG's reason, why are things going so well when privately he's consumed by his pet vices? Surely God see's his evil deeds, why hasn't he punished him yet? TOG assumes God must be saving up his wrath to unleash on him in a torrent of punishment unlike anything he's ever seen before. TOG, out of fear must appease this wrathful God by doing an equal amount of good works (if such a thing were possible). His life is a balancing act, balancing the weights of God justice with good works for evil ones. He walks a tight-rope with Hell on either side. One mis-step and all is lost.
When TOG reads scripture he finds Law in Gospel passages, and Gospel in Law passages. Words of comfort bring him terror and dread. Stern words of Law bring him comfort. You see, the Gospel tells him his salvation depends on somebody else. All of TOG' s actions revolve around himself, for he is the only one he can trust. How can someone elses works be accredited to him. Does God really expect him to put all his trust in Christ's work, doesn't God want him to do good things too? Ah, the Law! Now, the Law is something he can get behind, because he knows if he does his best, if he does what's in him, God will meet him in the middle and reward him for his efforts. God has never explained this to him, as a matter fact, this kind of idea is no where to be found in scripture. In fact, scripture points in the other direction. But, he knows this by intuition, he knows in his heart of hearts this is true. Let his heart be true and everyone else, including God, be a liar.
If the Heathen raises rational opposition to TOG's God, he is quick to make God's actions reasonable. If the Heathen asks how a good and omnipotent God could allow evil to take place, TOG will go on an endless theodicy to justify God's actions. He fears the Heathen's judgment. He fears there is a "ring of truth" in the accusation, for deep down he knows it doesn't square with his reason either, and can't accept that his God, could very well be a devil. Inflicting pain and suffering on innocent people, what good and all-powerful God would do such a thing? TOG's reason, er...that is...God must be defended at all costs.
Most importantly, TOG looks at the cross with confusion. How can Christ gain victory in defeat? How can the murder of such a righteous man ever be called good? No, he'd rather concentrate his theology on Christ's resurrection and skip over all that unpleasant mess of the Cross. He'd rather focus on the gloriousness he shares with Christ than the hideousness Christ shares with him in his sin.
The truth is, we are all TOG! In the heart of every one of us lies a Pharisee. A self righteous hypocrite who longs to water down God's Law and tread the Gospel underfoot so as to appease our personal "impression" of God instead of the true and living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We who desperately want to understand God outside of His chosen method of revelation are also the same persons who upon claiming great knowledge of God in His glory, would attempt to correct even God Himself if He were to show us a different way. We are people who make idols of our own reason instead of submitting our reason to God's Word. We are people who pretend to look upon the glorious hidden things of God, His private councils, His wisdom, and claim to go on and continue living.
The funny thing is I don't doubt TOG, we do indeed look at glorious things. I have no doubt that what we claim to receive is from none other than "an angel of light". However, we know what the Bible says about such things (2 Cor. 11:14, Rom. 11:33-36).
The question I leave you with is simple, are you a theologian of glory? Do you long to know the glorious things of God, instead of letting God be God and taking your rightful place under his grace and mercy given us in the cross of Christ? Did you feel uncomfortable while I described the theologian of glory and his sinful ways? If you did, then repent for the Lord our God is merciful and longs to forgive us of our iniquity. However, we must accept the image God gives us of ourselves, we must submit ourselves to the image of the man on the cross, so that the image of God can be restored in us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
